So in the year 2000, 61.4% of Californians voted yes on Prop 22 to define marriage as a man + woman. Where did we lose our values over the last 8 years?

Cali has created the world they deserve, why anyone who remotely cares about their kids or the next generation is still living there is beyond me.

Let the bohemians have it, and let them f*@$ themselves all to death, bot literally and figuratively.

Propaganda!

The source is a gay-friendly paper and everybody asked was probably gay.

Uh-huh. Sure. People are probably lying about how they will vote. Don’t want to seem uncool or mean.

If this fails to pass, I’m sure you’ll see some “conservatives” wanting to overturn the will of the voters, the very thing they’re angry at the California Supreme Court for. The one-trick pony of gay marraige fear isn’t going to work anymore. Why don’t we go back to focusing on lower taxes, cutting spenidng, and shirnking government, and forget about this crap.

DITTO. If the gay ban has a 9 percent cushion, why did their activists go to court to have it removed from the Nov ballot???

And as the end of my sentence suggests, I should focus more on proofreading for typos.

Somehow I suspect that we’ll wind up seeing the same old familiar articles asking how the polling could have been so wrong, when Californians reject the Marxist rule of their Supreme Court.

It's a poll. A lot of libs and gays said the same things last time around...and look how it turned out.

We just need to get the word out and the good people to the polls. And yes, I said "good". I view trying to define marriage as a gay union as perverted and evil.

The only poll that counts will be the one that is taken in November.

I’m reading here that the queers and queer-sympathizers are in the majority in this, the biggest of all the Left Coast States.

This poll could be phony, of course.

Either Californians don’t know why they’re against gay marriage or they are in favor of it.

How could it have failed so badly last time it was tested at the ballot box, if this is an accurate picture of California?

Something doesn’t seem right.

I don't believe the article.

But, there is a lot of brainwashing going on in our schools to "normalize" homosexuality.

The idea of strong family units with a mother, father, and children is going right out the window:-(

All Field polls are phony.

Of course there is, CALI is where the legislature believe its the responsibility of the schools to brain wash kindergardeners into homosexuality as normal. Like I said, if you care about your kids at all, there is no way you can live in Cali, IMHO.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder, nothing more, nothing less.. you don’t pander and enable and “normalize” alcoholism, but this is exactly what the gay activists are doing. I will not be an enabler to their disease... they need pity and help, not “congratulations” for their illness.

Margin of error is 3.9%. The article should have said, evenly split at best. This is not a good sign for such a weak story in a very pro-gay newspaper.

If you are talking to a non-judeo/christian based person, what reason(s) do you give for gay marriage being the wrong direction to go?

I think the answer should be based on the Nebraska court ruling a few years back regarding gay marriage.

Because a culturally liberal nation cannot have low taxes, less spending, and limited government. Show me an area that’s “gay friendly” and I’ll show you an area full of big government socialists. Case in point: San Francisco. Try going there and running for office on a promise of less government and fiscal conservatism. Assure them that you’re fully with them on the issue of “tolerance” for homosexuality. It won’t make a bit of difference, they’ll still vote for the big government socialist and reject you. That’s because a socially liberal populace is inherently going to be weak and dependent.

Take your state of Minnesota as an example. Where would a campaign based on opposing big government have a better chance? In the socially conservative rural areas and small towns? Or in “tolerant” Minneapolis? It would flop in Minneapolis because the people who think homosexuality is just peachy keen are also weak-kneed, whiny, socialists who want national health care and every other free goody the left can offer.

I believe this “poll” like I believe L.A. Times, CNN, or New York Times “polls”. This measure will pass by a margin of 5% or more. Mark my words. This is just the media attempting to bias the public and set the stage. But it will pass, bet on it.

Let’s hope you’re right.

We descended a long way in 8 years. The degenerates control to media and define the argument.

Why don’t we go back to focusing on lower taxes, cutting spenidng, and shirnking government, and forget about this crap.

Yes indeed. It's more important to "cherry pick" our values than to hold firm in the face of opposition. Typical of libertarians to want to cut-and-run when things get tough.

LOL...Field Poll.

You always have to shift at least 10% in the conservative direction to correct their polls.

"Likely voters oppose marriage initiative"

BS

All Field polls are phony.

50% of statistics are made up 92% of the time, and I have the poll to prove it!

This kind of proposal brings out people who, even if they are usually quite liberal, just can’t accept the idea of homosexuals marrying. They won’t say it publicly - but they talk about it around the kitchen table with family and friends, and object to the idea vehemently.

I expect that new constitutional amendment to pass with percentage to spare.

Wishful thinking poll. Wait until the vote is actually taken....

Why should at least 5000 years of every civilization's wisdom be allowed to be scrapped by people who are sexually confused? Why should aberration be accommodated by any society? Especially one that produces so much death?

Cali has created the world they deserve . . .

It's not real californians who have created this "world", but transplants from other parts of the country and from abroad. In 2000 CA voters voted by a margin of 61%+ in favor of defining a marriage as between one man and one woman. In the intervening years we've had an influx of out-of-staters from other liberal areas of the country, and that is affecting our state's politics.

That crowd out there wants to name a filtering plant after Bush. The whole ocean could not filter California enough to clean it up.

If 2004 is any indication, gay marriage gets out the vote!

By comparison, here is a part of the Field Poll from August, 1982:

       PCT     N  VALUE  LABEL
      60.9   523      1  BRADLEY
      37.6   323      2  DUKMEJIN
       1.5    13      3  OTHER
             148      8  UDECIDED

The one-trick pony of gay marraige fear isn’t going to work anymore.

Tell you what? Don't waste your breath trying to impose your immorality upon me and my country, ok?

If the voters of CA accept butt-sex fake marriage, that's their issue. If they try to impose it upon me and my locality via the "full faith and credit" clause, we'll take it to a Constitutional Amendment.

In my opinion, I think butt-sex marriage is going down in CA thanks to the will of the voters.

All you have to do is see the breakdown in polling regions and understand “S.F. Comical-speak”.

“Los Angeles County” - Westwood, Beverly Hills and Hollywood. No Blacks or Hispanic areas polled.
“Other Southern California” - Santa Barabara - not Orange County or San Diego County
“Bay Area” - San Francisco/Berkeley.
“Central Valley” - polled five people at gas stations off I-99. When most voted “yes,” they stopped polling.

everybody asked was probably gay.

The lack of spread in the age breakdown leads me to believe you are probably right. The 50/50 split in the >65 category leaves considerable doubt, to my mind, about sampling validity

Here’s a classic example of the type of “limited government” you can expect in a “gay tolerant” area:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/MNH311PMRE.DTL

Trust me, the majority is going to vote in support of the amendment. This is just the MSM trying to stage things. They’re full of crap. This measure will pass by 55% or more.

There's no logical reason why the two should be related at all. Most of the cities that have big gay populations were liberal beforehand; many gays are liberals, but not all, and not all live in cities. Also, look at a city like San Diego, that is both gay-friendly and relatively conservative.

There have been politicians who have run as being “progressive” on gay issues while being solid economic conservatives, sometimes even moreso than their social conservative counterparts. For examples, see former Gov. Bill Weld (R-MA), former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY), and former Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ).

A campaign against big government would flop in both the Twin Cities and socially conservative rural areas. Most rural areas of Minnesota vote DFL - look at our Congressional representation and our state legislature. Conservative strength in Minnesota is all in the suburbs, which includes both socially conservative suburbs and not-so-socially conservative suburbs, such as my hometown of Edina.

I don’t things are tough. I think this is not really a relevant issue for government and a waste of time.

In the intervening years we've had an influx of out-of-staters from other liberal areas of the countrycountries.

Net growth in California has been negative among U.S. citizens, from what I've read. It is possible, though that New Yorkers are almost displacing native/long-time Californians, who are leaving in droves.

Why don’t we go back to focusing on lower taxes, cutting spenidng, and shirnking government, and forget about this crap.

Allow me to spell it out for you (seeing as you can't): Gay marriage breeds government expenditures to cover welfare dependency, health-care expenses, therapy for destroyed families, and crime.

Society will accept or reject what it will. Government can’t do anything about it, by either banning or forcing gay marriage.

I’m not imposing anything on anyone. I don’t think government should be in the business of defining a religious institution to begin with, be it in favor of gay marriage or against it.

By the way, why is it your mind always goes to “butt-sex”? I think that says a lot about you.

I never said I’d expect limited government in a place like San Francisco. A lot of gays are liberals. Furthermore, some might have conservative leanings, but we scare them away from embracing conservatism. I’ve met people who are very conservative on issues like guns and taxes, but would never vote Republican because of this crap.

Romans 1:24-27 “So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. SO they worshiped and served the creation rather than the creator Himself, who is worthy of eternal praise. That is WHY God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead induled in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having NORMAL sexual relations with women, BURNED with Lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this SIN, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.”

I’m not speaking in favor of gay marriage. I’m against government marriage in the first place, as well as all the various welfare you are listing. I’m just curious what the reaction will be from people who claimed to favor the “will of the voters” if this thing loses. I guess the will of the voters only matters if the voters decide what they want them to - kind of like liberals with the court system.

Not relevant? Hmmmm. I guess, then, you are not paying any attention to those posts to you which specify the reasons why this is relevant for “government”. Oh, and while we’re on the topic of “government”, you might want to pay attention to the fact that WE are the “government”.

The Field Poll is bunk... its as far Lefty as they come.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

So, if the “will of the voters” in the state of California were to pass a bill allowing for sexual relations between adults and children, you would expect everyone to stay out of the affairs of those voters, right?