New Poll Busts Legislators' Myths About NJ & Equality

The Poll (0.00 / 0)

The numbers on the whole "more likely, less likely" if civil unions don't do the job question don't add up at all unless 141% is the new way to say 100%.

The prime question is about what you are open to supporting.  32% say that they would support civil unions only.  This number is actually higher than the middle ground identified in the Eagleton and Quinnipiac polls.

If you want to alleviate the concerns of legislators, then the question that needs to be asked in a reliable poll of those people who are opposed to civil unions, but support gay rights in general is, "If the Legislature went ahead and legalized gay marriage, how likely would you be to vote against a legislator who voted to legalize gay marriage against your preference even if they had tangible accomplishments on property taxes:  MML, SML, ML, ND, LL, SLL, MLL."  Even assuming that there are tangible accomplishments to brag about leaves open the question of the problem of going against the electorate's wishes.  If people wouldn't really care about that, then that is one thing.  However, when people say that they will vote against a legislator who voted the "wrong" way (for them) on such an emotional issue, what would you expect the legislators to do?

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:40:20 AM CST

The electorate's wishes (0.00 / 0)

Which of the following issues is most important to you personally?

Property taxes  47%
Government corruption  29%
The environment  16%
Marriage for gay couples  3%
Transportation/congestion  2%
Other/Not sure  4%Being favor of equal rights is not legislating inequality.

---

by: JRB @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:25:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

3% (0.00 / 0)

Marriage for gay couples whether you are for it or against it is at 3% and that is a mandate to legalize gay marriage???

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:44:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Look again (0.00 / 0)

3% say it is their primary issue. Can priorities change? Yup. If we invaded Delaware next month, I'm sure that would move some opinions. But it's doubtful, just like the idea that property taxes won't be an issue next November.

In other words, people have other priorities. So legislators can stop being afraid.

---

by: JRB @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:14:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More likely = Somwehat more likely + Much more likely n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:10:22 AM CST

Now I Understand (0.00 / 0)

Then the easiest way to put it is that:

33% are more likely (to one degree or another) to support gay marriage if they "know" that civil unions will not get the job done.

13% are less likely (to one degree or another) to support gay marriage if they "know" that civil unions will not get the job done.

However, for 49% it makes no difference to them about gay marriage for them to "know" that civil unions will not get the job done.

Again, there is no mandate here.  In fact, what it says is that the "strongest" argument for legalizing gay marriage instead of taking at least "half the loaf" of civil unions has no impact on half the population.

Unfortunately, there is still a big job of educating the public that needs to take place if this is going anywhere.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:52:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think I see where you're coming from, Creed (0.00 / 0)

'Busting myths' isn't saying there is a mandate for marriage.

It's saying that opinions are soft and people don't really know much about the subject. Codey talks about it like voters have made up their minds.

The state legislature needs to hit the brakes. Given the time, people can learn what equality is. Then we'll see that mandate.

---

by: JRB @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:18:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mandate? (0.00 / 0)

My main point isn't whether there is or isn't a mandate.  My two points are that first, that the main reason for the lack of forward movement on gay marriage is that a sizable chunk of the population is only in favor of civil unions.  It would be interesting to see a crosstab between the people in favor of civil unions only and the question about supporting gay marriage if you "know" that civil unions won't do the job.

My second point is that the education and persuasion that needed to be done a long time ago has never been done and it still seems that the focus is on lobbying the legislators instead of persuading the public.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:06:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what are your ideas? (0.00 / 0)

What do you think is the most effective way to persuade the public? You've criticized just about everything that's been tried so far without offering an alternate plan. Do you support allowing everyone to marry or are you just trying to gum things up?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:17:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My Ideas (0.00 / 0)

A lot of this is like our situation in Iraq:  what do you do now that we are so far down the road.  In Iraq, the only real choice is withdrawal; the argument is over how fast.  For this, the only real choice is going ahead with the civil unions legislation.  The big thing that got included was the commission.  The other item that should be pushed is mutual recognition.

The reality is that civil unions is going to pass and that A3685 is never even going to get a hearing.

The only way to proceed is to have as many people as possible take advantage of civil unions and then see how many have problems and then push that argument.  The two women who had the nightmare at Lourdes should have been the "poster children" unless there is more to the story.  But, to have a bunch of other couples (preferably with children) who have been denied basic, common sense rights even though they have a civil union.  Until that happens, you aren't going to get that broad middle that is in favor of gay rights in general but opposed to gay marriage in particular to go along.

This is obviously not a popular viewpoint, but it is based on reality.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:40:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

question (0.00 / 0)

Do you support allowing everyone to marry?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:43:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Paula & Rozz (0.00 / 0)

GSE included Paula and Rozz's story in the video that was shown at all houseparties. That's where this clip came from (viewed over 2500 times on youtube). The media was given the GSE video in advance. It's been mentioned in the Think Equal campaign. An entire ad was based on their story. Their story has appeared in print.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:49:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nonsense (0.00 / 0)

No political situation possesses one solution. These IS no one way to proceed. There is the direction Codey and Roberts have taken, and that may well come to be the law of the land for a time, but it was hardly the only way.

Here's another way to proceed. How about gay couples refuse to register for civil onions? Isn't THAT another way to proceed? 

I am suspicious of your thought, "unless there is more to the story." Why do you cast doubt on that couples' story? What need is there for that?

Hmmm ....

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:55:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What A Cheap Shot! (0.00 / 0)

dennismcgrath wrote:
I am suspicious of your thought, "unless there is more to the story." Why do you cast doubt on that couples' story? What need is there for that?

This is something I only saw by accident on YouTube when I was looking at the Think Equal ads (which are very well done, by the way).  I don't know why everyone in New Jersey doesn't know these people when it would have seemed to be a way to make the case about the insufficiency of civil unions. 

That, Mr. McGrath, was all I was saying.  Your posting on this is consistently rancorous and repetitive.  They don't really add much to this discussion.  I can only hope they do something for you.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:35:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That Is A Truly Stupid Idea! (0.00 / 0)

dennismcgrath wrote:
Here's another way to proceed. How about gay couples refuse to register for civil onions? Isn't THAT another way to proceed?

Yes, do everything you can to MINIMIZE your impact!  Very, very smart politically.

But then, I guess continuing the argument of trying to prove something from the absence of things (a logical fallacy BTW), your idea is to say that civil unions didn't work because no one used them so therefore, there is no choice but to legalize gay marriage?  Outside of a small orbit of people who are painfully naive politically, do you really think that will work???

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:39:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Cyclical (0.00 / 0)

We're trying to educate everybody so they know the differences.

And we do lobby the legislators. They turn around and say, 'We get it -- but the public doesn't.' That's a circle. So, we educate everyone. And education = lobbying them to our favor because the majority wants equality.

---

by: JRB @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:23:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Voter views (0.00 / 0)

To me, one of the most interesting thing about the poll is the low percentage of people for whom the issue of gay marriage is the "most important" issue--3% is functionally equivalent to zero.  Of course, that small faction (more like a splinter, really) is loud--and if the rest of us don't raise our voices, too, legislators will think this tiny group really represents something significant.

We all need to get on the horn and/or get to Trenton Thursday! 

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 13:12:29 PM CST

Alas (0.00 / 0)

It is rather probable that the 3% represents the full extent of BOTH SIDES on the issue.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:01:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

different take (4.00 / 1)

To me this says it's not an issue most people vote on. I don't see this as a negative. If anything it should give the legislators the freedom and motivation to lead the state towards justice by doing the right thing without fearing retribution from the voters for it.

Recall that in Massachusetts, no legislator who voted for same-sex marriage lost re-election, and one who did was defeated. When there were open seats, pro-same-sex legislators were elected to fill those spots.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:05:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Massachusetts or Vermont (0.00 / 0)

Apparently, too many LGTBI leaders simply assumed that the NJ Supreme Court would go the Massachusetts route and were simply unprepared for the strong possibility that they would make a "Vermont" ruling.  In Massachusetts, the legislature was asked to allow a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prohibit gay marriage and only allow civil unions.  In New Jersey, the Legislature is being asked by the LGTBI community to go further than the state Supreme Court decision when most people have expressed an opposition to gay marriage.  That is a very big difference.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:24:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Read the poll (0.00 / 0)

In New Jersey, the Legislature is being asked by the LGTBI community to go further than the state Supreme Court decision when most people have expressed an opposition to gay marriage.  That is a very big difference.

You're still missing the point.

Read this:

Civil unions give gay couples many of the rights of marriage without allowing them to marry like straight couples can. Which of the following do you support for gay couples?

Can support either marriage or civil unions  44%
Civil unions only  32%

Then this:

Do you think that other people know what "civil unions" mean or do you think they really have no idea?

Know what it means  34%
Really have no idea  53%
Not sure  13%

They don't know the differences! We're saying, 'Give us time, not discrimination!' People in Massachusetts got it, but it took time for them to learn about the issue.

---

by: JRB @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:32:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Summary (0.00 / 0)

There was no plan.

Had there been a plan it - which there wasn't - it would have been executed poorly.

The strategy being implemented now is a bad one because (insert reasons here).

All of the polling since the beginning of time - even the polling that might appear favorable - actually conclusively shows that this bad plan is doomed to failure.

Everyone is selfish for wanting gay people to be treated just like straight people.

Got it. Loud and clear.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:42:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It Is Becoming More Obvious (0.00 / 0)

That there was no plan beyond a celebration once the state Supreme Court issued a "Massachusetts" ruling.

That there is no strategy beyond repeating "we should have this!" as many times and as loudly as possible.

Contrary to Juan's question, that strategy is being implemented very well.  It just isn't getting anywhere.

The only "favorable" polling has been a Zogby poll and Zogby polls along with other "interactive" polls are not considered to be as reliable.  The polling that has been done including the most recent poll quoted here says that 20-33% of the population favors gay rights, but opposes gay marriage.  Other than repeating that those people are either irrelevant or misinformed, nothing else is done.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:20:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

polling (0.00 / 0)

The Zogby poll was not one an online "interactive" poll. It was a real poll.

Do you support marriage equality? I'm not repeating the question to be annoying, but I think it's important to know where you stand if we're to take your tactical advice on the issue seriously.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:25:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

reply (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, Juan, I had a bunch of slings and arrows to respond to.  :-)

As someone who is happily married, I am more than happy for as many people as possible to be married.  I do favor mandatory counseling before because I think it will help reduce the divorce rate, but that is a discussion for another time.  I am strongly opposed to a marriage amendment as well.  My point, however, continues to be that the public support just isn't there and isn't going to be there any time soon.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:46:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

polls (0.00 / 0)

I think you're absolutely wrong that the public support won't be there any time soon. It's already been there.

Rutgers-Eagleton poll, June 23, 2006:

Would you favor or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?

(June, 2006)
Favor: 50%
Oppose: 44%

(Sept, 2003)
Favor: 43%
Oppose: 50%

In 2003, the numbers were the same as they are now and they completely reversed as of June of this year. This numbers will turn around soon.

And the Zogby poll from February of this year had an even greater 56%-39% support for marriage for gay couples. The backlash we're seeing now was predictable and happened in Massachusetts when their Supreme Court ruled to allow gay couples to marry.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:56:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Backlash (0.00 / 0)

Yes, there is always some polling showing support for gay marriage until the time to actually vote on it.

Both of those Eagleton polls are within the margin of error.  The most recent poll, however, showed a different story as we both know.

My concern today is that even when the "friendly" poll shows that one-third of the population is only in favor of civil unions, everyone acts like it just doesn't matter.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 16:07:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Were you there? (0.00 / 0)

Apparently, too many LGTBI leaders simply assumed that the NJ Supreme Court would go the Massachusetts route and were simply unprepared for the strong possibility that they would make a "Vermont" ruling.

Sorry, pal, but that's just speculative crap on your part, and though it's cute, IT'S WRONG. Plenty of planning was done on the three key scenarios: Massachusetts, Vermont, and Texas.

And yes, I wasn't at every meeting -- I don't always get my copy of the gay agenda -- but I was at more than enough of them to know what nonsense this assertion truly is.

Would you like the mouthy gay people to go away now, Mr. Pogue?

What an appropriate handle you have chosen ...

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:00:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's Not A Handle, It's My Name (0.00 / 0)

What an appropriate handle you have chosen ... 

Maybe Dennis should review rules #1 and #3.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:13:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Planning (0.00 / 0)

I honestly think it would have been better to say that everyone was simply surprised and disappointed with the Court's decision than to say that you were present at meetings that created a "real plan" in place in case of a "Vermont" ruling.

Everything seems to have been pretty "ad hoc" to date.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:51:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Juan just nailed it (0.00 / 0)

Fact is, same sex marriage IS an incredibly important, yet highly marginal issue. Statistically, almost no one actually cares one way or the other, unless or until they are asked about it. That does not mean it's not important, or it should not be addressed. It does mean that resistance to same sex marriage, based on fears that 'the public is not ready,' is b******t.

If five percent of nine million New Jerseyans are members of a sexual minority, then we're talking about as many as 450,000 people; but, to mention GSE only as an example, they've claimed as many as 13,000 members, or just under 3 percent of that 450,000. And that's after three years of intense lobbying and organization. I'm not criticizing GSE; I AM getting to a key point.

The public, by-and-large, does not care! Our legislators hide behind poorly cast poll questions for fear of their comfy sinecures, but their fear is entirely unfounded!

No one in Massachusetts lost an election for supporting same sex marriage. No one in New Jersey can cerdibly claim 'we're just not ready.' SOUTH freakin' AFRICA is ready! WTF!

In 1866, there were STILL 18 African-Americans enslaved in the state of New Jersey. TRUE FACT! Did it not matter that their freedom be restored because they were so few in number? OF COURSE NOT!

There is NOTHING concrete stopping the legislature from doing the right thing the first time, other than some momentary noise from the loyal opposition. If Joe Roberts and Dick Codey said, vote for this thing or risk some REAL consequences, votes would magically appear. Same sex marriage would be a done deal in December 2006, and then, come November 2007, the sky would still be in its firmanent, the sun will shine as always for both the rich and poor, and taxes and revenues will be the primary topic in Trenton, as they have been for the last 200+ years. 

But because gays are icky and legislators are spineless, it's easier to avoid the gay ick and ooze on off (leaving trails of legislator ick behind) to vote in civil onions, and for the spineless slitherers to hope like hell that the next time this comes up, probalby not before 2010, they're already retired, preferably on two or more pensions.

Don't think they don't know this. It's disgusting, frankly.  Suddenly, transgendered rights in the LAD and needle exchanges are politically viable, but same sex marriage? Nope, still ain't ready for that. 

So add TG rights and needle exchange to the half a loaf I'm being told to choke on along with civil onions. Dear gay person, sez Codey and Roberts, here are one not-so-good thing (civil onions) and two really, really good things (TG protection in the LAD, needle exchanges) in return for you shutting up and going away on the topic of same sex marriage. Oh, do I feel like a full citizen now!

It's disgusting. It's a farce, Mr. Codey. It's a farce, Mr. Roberts. It's transparent, palpable codswallop. And you're going to get away with it because (drum roll, please), the communities of sexual minorities have nowhere else to go politically. Shame on you both.

---

by: denniscmcgrath @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:42:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

BRAVO! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:01:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]