Following the launch of pro-traditional marriage television and radio ads, support for the California Marriage Amendment has picked up, according to a new statewide poll, which shows a majority of voters favoring a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.
Proposition 8, which would effectively ban gay "marriages" in the state by defining marriage as between a man and a woman, is leading 47-42, according to the SurveyUSA poll.
The poll, which was conducted Oct. 4-5 on behalf of four television stations, differed greatly from a Field Poll released in September that showed the amendment trailing 38-55 percent. A SurveyUSA poll in September also showed weak support for the amendment with opposition leading 49-44 percent.
"We are thrilled with the new polling data. It confirms what we have heard from thousands of supporters," said Yes on 8 Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert in a statement.
The Yes on 8 campaign is attributing the gain to the launch of their first television ad last week and a door to door campaign.
The ad features a clip of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom declaring in front of gay and lesbian couples, "The door's wide open now! It's gonna happen whether you like it or not." The excerpt was taken from his speech on May 15, when the state Supreme Court legalized gay "marriage."
According to Yes on 8, the ad served to remind voters that gay "marriage" was imposed on California by a narrowly divided California Supreme Court which overturned the vote of over 4 million Californians who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, which protected traditional marriage.
In the ad, Pepperdine University Law Professor Richard Peterson says that if Prop. 8 is not passed, consequences could include people being sued for their personal beliefs, churches opposed to gay "marriage" being threatened with loss of their tax exempt status, and gay "marriage" being taught in public schools.
"The ad that is running is powerful and provocative. Not only does it show the arrogance of those who would impose same-sex marriage on California whether we like it or not, but it also shows that voters are beginning to understand there are consequences to all Californians if same-sex marriage is legalized," commented Schubert.
"TV ads can make a difference," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, according to San Jose Mercury News.
The latest Field Poll was taken after the ballot wording of Prop. 8 was modified to describe the initiative as amending the California Constitution to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry" instead of stating "only marriage between a man and a woman as valid," as the original text read.
Another Field Poll on Prop. 8 will not be released until the Thursday or Friday before Election Day, Mercury News reported.
Although two other states, Arizona and Florida, will consider their own marriage amendments this election, California has become the platform for both sides of the highly charged issue to take their stand.
Last week, nearly 4,000 young Christians voiced their support for the amendment at a rally held at San Diego's Rock Church.
San Diego will also be the site of a massive prayer rally, known as The Call California, on Nov. 1. A crowd of around 100,000 Christian youth, who have been called to fast 40 days before the Election, is expected to gather at Qualcomm Stadium to rally support for the California marriage amendment and to ask God for a nationwide revival.
The new SurveyUSA poll showed that younger voters, aged 18 to 34, held some of the strongest support for the amendment.
Gay and lesbian couples, meanwhile, have been rushing to obtain wedding licenses. In fact, a new study released Monday by UCLA's Williams Institute, found that an estimated 11,000 same-sex couples have wed in California. That figure suggests that more gay couples were married in California in the first three months of the union being declared legal than were married in the first four years it was legal in Massachusetts. Around 10,385 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts, according to the new study.
But traditional marriage supporters are not letting go without a fight.
The Yes on 8 campaign said it expects to release a new television ad this week, according to Mercury News.
RSS
It must be someone who doesn't believe in our right to free speech...unless it agrees with their opinions.
I had read Prpphet's posts and did not think them abusive. Could CP please review and unflag Prophet's posts? If possible, could you let us know who was flagging them? Or, failing that, ban the person doing it?
Although it is nice to see the poll say that...it's still a poll! I wait to see what happens at the election poll on Nov. 4th.
Actually, I gave Prophet a thumbs up.
Its also cute how you give yourself a thumbs up every time you post...
FYI Prophet, I didn't delete his post, but its interesting that you think I did. Its almost as if you're stalking my posts on this sight, which is quite creepy.
I wonder who flagged johnmorrison...hmmmm....could it be someone who wants to silence any other opinion but theirs? Is it someone who has said numerous times that it will never be considered illegal to speak out against homosexuality, but yet proves that all it takes is a group of people like them to make it happen. That they are already, in this room, making it "illegal" to speak anything contrary to what they believe....
Quite honestly, I would need a clear communication with God, and I know because its happened once before (this actually is why I know God exists and why I believe in the Eucharist.) I was on a mission trip with my youth group in the Bahamas. We had mass every night, and 2 nights before, my very best friend had moved out to California and I was devastated. At Mass on the first night the priest was giving his homily and talking about how Jesus calls us to him through the gift of the Eucharist. The priest was giving examples of how Jesus knew our struggles and pain, and he said 'I don't know, maybe your best friend just moved across the country and you're afraid you'll never see them again. Come to Jesus in the Eucharist, he will be there with you. " This priest absolutely did not know my situation, and I have no doubt, whatsoever, that it was Christ talking directly to me, telling me he knew my pain and struggles.
I know Jesus has the power to speak to us, and I have faith that if he is that concerned, truly knowing my heart and my entire being, he will lead me down the path he requires of me.
mike2685, what would God need to show you to allow you to know you are going down the wrong path with regards to the sexual practices of homosexuality?
I believe that if we are truly seeking God, we will find Him. So I pray you are right that He will remove roadblocks, Mike. My fear is that your own desire is the road block.
Mike, I pray if I am wrong that I recognize it and change, and if you are wrong that you recognize it and change.
wb, I have faith that if I am going down the wrong path, God will put a roadblock there. He has never failed to do so in the past.
Mike, your words brought tears to my eyes.
I really hope to see you in heaven. I wish you'd reconcile your life to the Bible, instead of the Bible to your life.
No, I look at myself realistically, then look at the Bible along with history and science to found my beliefs on. I do have tremendous faith in God and spend time praying, and while I do appreciate the place you're coming from, I know we will continue to disagree.
Mike,
The difference between you and me is not our choice of sin (I've been bisexual, before I was a Christian). It is that I recognize I am a sinner and do not try to justify my sin. I try to accept what God has said, confess my sin, turn from sin and turn to God. You refuse to accept the word of God and try to find ways to justify your sin.
Mike,
Like I said, you would not hear the truth. You don't want to hear and accept the truth, as you think it would call into question your whole identity. But God creates people and they have the choice to sin or not. You choose to sin. That's fine. Its your choice. But don't pretend it is not sin.
I apologize, it was WB who said it would have been encountered. WB, your connect the dots still does not relate Jesus to talking about homosexuality. You are stretching the truth.
mike2685, I made no claim that Christ encountered it, I said there were those who committed those sins in Jesus days on the earth, now had He had a direct encounter with it He certainly would have spoken to it. But once again He did speak to it in an indirect way when He affirmed marriage as between one man and one woman for life only. And He also affirmed that sexual intimacy was reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united by God in marriage.
I know you will not hear this. But I will try to lay it out for those who want to hear truth.
Sexual immorality was a category of sin.
1 Corinthians 5:1
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a KIND that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife.
Paul had to address a specific example of the category of sexual immorality: a man sleeping with his father's wife (his step-mother). The only other place this is spoken against in Leviticus 18:8; Leviticus 20:11; Deuteronomy 22:30; Deuteronomy 27:20.
Jesus spoke out against the entire category of sexual immorality.
Matthew 15:18-20
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man unclean; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him unclean.
Mark 7:20-22
20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. 21 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.
When He spoke out against sexual immorality, Jesus spoke out against all sexual sin, as defined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This includes homosexual sex, incest, bestiality, etc. So yes, Jesus spoke out against homosexual sex.
Believer, you do not know that, but you are making up excuses so your faith will not have to be questioned. The fact remains, if it was such an abomination, Jesus would have logically talked about it, ESPECIALLY if you claim he would have encountered it!
WB, I'm not sure where you say Jesus talked about homosexuality. I think you are stretching things as far as they can go on this issue.
mike2685, because everyone pretty much knew it was an abomination the same way they knew other practices such as rape were wrong so Christ did not have to speak directly to them, but in some ways He spoke indirectly to those sins the same way He did when He affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman for life and that indirectly affirms that the sexual practices of homosexuality are an abomination because sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united before God in matrimony.
Mike,
Sexual immorality was a category of sin.
1 Corinthians 5:1
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a KIND that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife.
So when Jesus spoke out against sexual immorality, he DID speak out against homosexual sex. It matters not whether you believe it or not, it does not change the fact that Christ spoke out against the entire category of sin (Matthew 15:18-20; Mark 7:20-22), and that includes homosexual sin.
wb, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, no matter how you try to twist it. Believer, I did not say there were open gay couples in Roman times, I said there were orgies in which sex took place between same genders. If anything, your assumption that there were openly gay couples proved my point: Why did Jesus remain silent on the issue? He spoke directly to prostitution and to adultery, 2 sexual sins, so why not homosexuality if it was such an abomination?
I do not understand the claim that long-term homosexual relationships were not know in Bible times. Of course they were. Alexander The Great and Hephaistion would be known (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaistion). As would Emperor Hadrian and his lover Antonius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinous). It was even beleived that Julius Ceasar had a long time homosexual relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar). It even may be that Octavious had a relationship with Julius Ceasar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus). It was so common that I'm sure these were not the only homosexual lovers known in the Greek and Roman worlds into which the New Testament was written.
Yet, God said homosexual sex and desire were sins - not in context of worship, but in context of inappropriate sexual relationships. Jesus was quite clear sexual sin was not acceptable. He spoke out against sexual sin, which was clearly defined in the Old Testament.
Yet, Christ came to pay the price for sins of those who would believe in Him. And if you believe, you must leave sin behind.
mike2685, you yourself have said that there were practicing homosexuals during the time of the Roman Empire and now you say there weren't, so which is it? As far as stoning goes, the only crime that required stoning was murder all other crimes that called for stoning could be settled and in most cases were dealt with through other forms of punishment such as prison or fines.
Then lust must not be the proper translation. And if it was sin, why are we no longer stoned. What made God change his mind, if he apparently does not do that?
The reason why gays were stoned in the Bible is because it was a sin. Which proves our point. The word "lust" in Romans isn't the same type of "lust" that you make it to be. It is the word "orexis". It is the only time in the entire Bible that word is used. The word for "lust" that you are thinking is "epithumeo". Those two aren't even close.
In biblical days there were not open gay couples, they were all stoned to death. There were, however, orgies, which the Bible speaks out about. I am sure I could find something in the Bible which could be interpreted as speaking out about condom usage if I really tried, just like you do for homosexuality (funny, that word wasn't even created until the late 1800's. And that whole passage about leaving the natural use of women and burning in lust after each other...there's a clear difference between love and lust, and gay couples are in love (not to mention, WHEN science proves homosexuality is not a choice, that bible verse will lose all its water. )
mike2685, plus my contention all along has been that the sexual practices of homosexuality are condemned in both the Old and New Testament. But for the sake of discussion I have been willing to set that belief aside in order to ask those who support same-sex marriage to show me any biblical evidence where those practices are either condoned or endorsed in God's Word and other than a feeble attempt to say that the relationship between David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi were, which neither comes close to being seen in anyway as a homosexual relationship, no one has been able to find any biblical support because there isn't any even though their were practicing homosexuals during biblical days.
mike2685, as I mentioned at another site, rubber which is used to make condoms was not discovered until some 2000 years after Christ and that is why He did not speak to them since no one would have a clue what He was talking about. Homosexuality was present in His day and once again if the Jews were wrong in what they did if a person was caught committing the sexual practices of homosexuality He would have dealt with it as He did with other issues the Jews were not handling correctly.
God made all men from Adam and Eve.
Acts 17:26
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
God said man is to marry woman. In fact, God said at least one of the reasons for sex between a husband and wife is to avoid sexual immorality.
1 Cor 7:2-3
2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
It does not say a man should marry a man or a woman should marry a woman, but that each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
The law was given to show people what God wants and does not from us. Abraham was married to his half-sister.
Gen 20:12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.
It is most likely that Adam's children married each other, as no other people were alive at the time. But this was later forbidden, at the same time homosexual sex was forbidden (Lev 18).
But Christ spoke against all sexual immorality, and this included bestiality and homosexual sex (Matthew 15:18-20; Mark 7:20-23). If you actually read Romans 1, there is no reference to pagan rituals, merely of people suppressing the truth of God and putting created things in the place of God (not retaining the knowledge of God), and the sins they have been given over to - which includes homosexual desire and sex (as well as a ton of other sins). This is what people do when they decide they know more than God does, and these same people get given over to their sinful desires.
Believer, nor did he ever speak about homosexuality, so its OK. To say Jesus did not speak about gay marriage nor did he speak about condom usage, but condom usage is OK and gay marriage is not would be completely hypocritical of you.
mike2685, with regards to the condom issue in your 7:05 post, please refer to my 6:50 post, thanks believer. Plus, I am not a medical person, but I don't believe there were any birth control devices back in Jesus day so how could He speak to them the same way He did not speak to computers since they did not exist in His day.
mike2685, the Bible does state that Sarai was a half-sister to Abram when they were married, so it is highly probable that Cain did indeed marry his sister which at that time was not a problem because their genes were not such that they would produce kids with deformities which is the primary reason incest laws were instituted. However, by the time it got to Moses God instituted laws against incest in order to prevent relatives who were genetically too close from marrying and producing kids with deformities, but we also read that God was angered when Lot's two daughters earlier came in and slept with him, so it appears that from the beginning God forbid sexual intimacy between parents and their children.
Mike, that was me who said that about God creating others. That is why I said "I believe..." I'm not makine a teaching out of it. I'm not making a tenet of faith out of it. It's just a scenario that could be possible. The Bible never specifies either scenario, so both views are merely conjecture. You say that Cain was involved in incest by marrying his sister in order to support your argument. There is no evidence of that. I say God created other people to support my argument. There is no evidence of that either. So, now we can both agree that that argument is moot, since they can neither be proven nor disproven....
I think if we agreed on something the universe would stop :)
But God never said condoms were OK, so I don't understand how as a literalist you accept people using them.
Believer, why wouldn't the Bible have brought up the other people God created? You are purely speculating so your faith makes sense to you.
mike2685, as I have said all along God gave us sex for procreation and pleasure between one man and one woman united together in the eyes of God by matrimony. Any sex outside of the context of the marriage of one man to one woman is considered by God to be a sin.
I believe that Adam and Eve were the first to be created, but not the only. Their sons didn't marry their sisters...otherwise the Bible would have said they did.
In Genesis, God separated the female part from Adam (physically, physiological, emotional, etc, etc). Marriage and sex is the reunification of those two different parts...the male and female...into one complete person. The unification of two same parts creates an abomination.
The idea that something is sinful one minute, then you're married and suddenly its not is almost as absurd as your idea that incest was OK for Adam and Eve's children, then eventually became sin. Your logic discredits you constantly man!
Believer, you are actively supporting the use of condoms for married couples! Stop the "well where did I say..." because there is something called INFERENCING which clearly you struggle with. I can infer that you support condom usage by the fact that you are arguing me on this.
Tell me: Did God create sex for pleasure, or for procreation?
mike2685, how is it hypocritical to say that God intended the pleasure of sexual intimacy to be limited to the marriage bed of one man and one woman?
Yes, I am feeding of what believer says. Because he's right.
Prophet, again, you are thriving off what believer says. You are pathetic.
mike2685, please cite where I said I would allow condoms to be used in a marriage since that is not my call to make, that is a very private decision between a husband and a wife and God to determine that. But at the same time I find no specific scripture that condemns the use of birth control nor do I find specific scripture that endorses the use of birth control.
The point I was making is that from a religious point of view, God made sex for procreation, correct? You argue up and down that gays should not have sex because it goes against the natural plan of God for sex. It would follow then that condom usage also does. If you believe sex is used to bring a husband and wife together, that's fine, but you must admit that it would be hypocritical to say that God made sex for procreation, but also for fun, but only married couples could have fun with sex. Since you're such a biblical literalist, can you find me any evidence, at all, which would support condom usage? You have asked me that many times before about homosexuality, and insinuated that if I could not find any, then it must not be OK. Surely, you must have a bible verse to back up your ideas?
Believer,
I went back and checked that post. He said "You say sex is created for procreation, condoms are designed to try and stop that..."
Then I went back and checked some of your posts and saw nowhere where you said that....
Interesting.
I'm sure he can. But quit avoiding the question.
mike2685, please go back to your 8:53 or 8:35 post this morning and read what you posted. Did you not say that using condoms goes against what God intended sex to be used for?