The Republican Base Rejects Prop 8 Family Vision, but not Prop 8
Fresh off the Prop 8 trial, I was interested in what Markos’ latest poll–of 2003 Republicans–says about equal rights for gay men and women in this country.
First, the poll shows that Republicans think gays should be allowed or not allowed to do the following things:
Serve in military: Yes, 23%; No, 55%
Receive federal benefits for couples: Yes, 11%; No, 68%
Teach in public schools: Yes, 8%; No, 73%
Marry: Yes, 7%; No, 77%
That is, one in six of those polled are perfectly happy to let gay men and women risk sacrificing their lives for our mutual defense. But they don’t think those servicemen and women should be accorded one of the most basic rights in our society.
As the rest of the poll shows, these people are bigots in a bunch of other ways, as well, so the gay rights questions shouldn’t be that surprising.
But what I find particularly interesting is how that compares to the results that get to–at least partly–heterosexual marriage. As you recall, the central argument of the Prop 8 defendant-intervenors is that marriage is primarily about procreation.
[Defendant-Intervenor lawyer Charles Cooper]: And the purpose of the institution of marriage, the central purpose, is to promote procreation and to channel narrowly procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable enduring unions for the purpose —
THE COURT: Is that the only purpose of marriage?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, it is the central and, we would submit, defining purpose of marriage. It is the — it is the basis on which and the reason on which marriage as an institution has been universal across societies and cultures throughout history; two, because it is a pro-child societal institution.
In later questioning, Prop 8 lawyer David Thompson asserted some of the following gender-based reasons that marriage had to be heterosexual:
- “If you look at the Homer Simpsons of the world [with regards to low intelligence], there are a lot more men than women”
- “wives spend money differently — or, I should say, that women spend money differently than men in terms of as it relates to children”
- “Fathers’ biological and socially-reinforced masculine qualities predispose them to treat their children differently than do mothers, correct?”
- “the differences between maternal and paternal behavior are more strongly related to either the parents’ biological gender or sex roles, than to either of their degree of involvement in infant care or their attitudes regarding the desirability of paternal involvement in infant care”
- “fathers are more concerned than mothers about the adoption of cultural values and traditionally-defined sex roles”
The picture of marriage the Prop 8 proponents rely on (which itself comes from long outdated scholarship as a factual matter) to justify their opposition to marriage equality includes not just on procreation as the necessary and primary goal of marriage. But it also depends on a daddy who instills moral conservatism, a mommy who breast feeds and spends frivolously, and a mommy who helps her children’s dumb daddy negotiate life.
Which is interesting because when Research 2000 polled those same bigots about subjects that would suggest an acceptance of this view of marriage, they found pluralities and majorities opposed:
Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men leaders of the household?
Equal: 76%; Men: 13%
Should contraceptives use be outlawed?
Yes: 31%; No: 56%
Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?
Yes: 34%; No: 48%
Even among a group that has pretty frightening views otherwise, this group strongly believes in an equal marriage–precisely the kind long-outdated studies relied on by proponents advocated–and the availability of contraception.
If a majority of these people support keeping sex without procreation legal, then why won’t they support the right to marry for those men and women fighting to serve in the military?
If you look at the crosstabs on the poll questions, it is interesting that there is no regional variation to speak of in the answers. The South is marginally more extreme, but not outside a margin of error.
And not all that much difference between sexes.
I’m more interested by the fact that 18-29 year olds differ very little from their elders in the Republican party on these issues. That’s very bad news for Republicans. Research 2000 seems to have weighted (or gotten an accurate sample for, it’s hard to tell) their survey to the actual Republican party demographics (18-29 made up 18% of the electorate in 2008 but they skew so heavily Dem that they make up on 9% of Republicans).
It’s exactly these social issues that is dooming the Republican party.
ot
new interview
torture in Afghanistan (small field prisons)
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/2/americas_secret_afghan_prisons_investigation_unearths
Scott Horton addresses the Bybee, Yoo, Margolis “poor judgment” issue on Dem Now
Thanks for this heads up! We don’t get Democracy Now on our public teevee machines here in AZ, so I need to watch it online. I need to make that a regular part of my daily routine.
Bob in AZ
Seems to me the question never asked is “Should marriage be defined as the union of one man and one virgin woman?” Be interesting to see how that polls.
…or perhaps ‘one or more virgin women’. As featured in the Bible.
(and on TV–‘Big Love’! If you act now, we’ll double the offer! Our operators are standing by…)
Must be queasiness about their own sexuality.
At the risk of treading into slippery-slope territory, I have been wondering about cognitive differences. Are we seeing an inherent part of the human condition? I.e. there are some people – we all know examples – who fear change and difference to a degree that most of us would find disproportionate. It seems to be sincere and in most of these folks it seems to be a stable/permanent personality aspect – built-in, not a matter of reason or of informed choice. It’s a way of processing the world rather than a political philosophy per se, but it does predispose these folks towards conservative (in the classical sense) positions, and so makes them more likely to vote that way.
I guess over time the folks who have this trait must tend to socialize mainly within the group, and reproduce with others in the group. Is it the kind of trait likely to strengthen or concentrate within that core group, over multiple generations?
I used to joke that marketing people are speciating because they never date engineering people. Now I’m not so sure it was ever really a joke. Homo Republicanus?
On the positive side, their numbers appear to be dwindling…
Isn’t that closer to one in four?
Thanks for following this trial.
I was talking about the those who think gays shoudl serve (23%) less those who think they should also be able to marry (7%), so 16%.
To paraphrase Pogo: We have met the enemy and we be fucked.
Where do we go from here? Our Congress, especially the Senate is bought and paid for, not to mention extremely ineffective in governance. Our Prez keeps eating lotus blossoms, still expressing hope for bipartisanship, while incrementally eroding the Republic by shielding law breakers of the past Regime from investigated or trial. And the DoJ is aiding and abetting a corrosion of responsibility and accountability in government by tsk-tsking Biby/Yoo and others malfeasance in the DoJ and slow walking investigation of torture.
Voting has no effect on the behemoth of corruption and stagnation inside The Beltway, it just adds the occasional newbie to the cesspool. All the while, and maybe a base causality is the ignorance of the populous, as demonstrated by this poll. Republicans don’t own the franchise on being proud of their prejudice and warped reasoning processes.
Btw, that is a really low number of folks in favor of gay marriage, even for Republicans.
Pew’s polling last year put Republican support for gay marriage at around 17-20%. I wonder if these results are lower because the interviewees knew that it was a poll of Republicans (I think they knew, can somebody ask Markos?). I think maybe there is peer pressure to be against it if you are a Republican.
It’s also a LOT lower for support for serving in the mlitary.
ANd yes, they were self-identified Republicans.
The question I’m asking specifically is whether or not the folks being polled knew that only Republicans were being polled. The reason I’m asking is that the views expressed on the hottest of the hot button topics are measurably more “conservative” than on most other polls which include Republicans as a subgroup. This was a big poll (2000+ Republicans) so it should be more accurate than most other polls. Research 2000 is a fairly good pollster, so I don’t think they did anything wrong. The differences are too big to be sampling error on the part of other pollsters.
This poll evidently doesn’t include “Republican leaners”, people who vote like Republicans but identify as Independents, but I don’t think that accounts for the difference. So I’m left with some sort of perceived social desirability bias where the act of identifying yourself as a Republican BEFORE answering the survey questions causes people to have a greater tendency to oppose same sex marriage.
“All men are created equal” … separation of church and state … born free … Which part of the classics do these people not get?
At moments like these I like to go watch the video of Christian the lion again.
saw this on a t shirt up in Provincetown Mass a few years ago
“Too Many Right-Wing Christians. Too Few Lions.”
lol. The ironies are many, yes?
you bet
Reason and facts don’t matter to these Rethug bozos. Don’t plan on any reasonable conversations. I e-mailed a friend the results of the Kos poll and she sent back this: “On my flight from Des Moines to Minneapolis last Thursday, I sat next to a man who proclaimed he believed that Obama was a communist. End of story” She went back to her work.
that fits nicely with my theory that men who marry women are IDIOTS
SO, in Freep-theory, men who marry women are idiots. Perhaps, then, it’s time for the women involved to elevate their standards. I mean, who wants to be married to an idiot?
I cannot comprehend why anyone today objects to equal rights for gays and lesbians.
All arguments against equal rights are founded in nonsense, gross stupidity, and prejudice.
Those who choose to speak out, or vote against equal rights admit they are idiots when they do so.
I know Gopers that want gays thrown in jail or even killed for being gay. You’d be surprised how many of these types are out here still.
Those are usually the really kinky Republicans like Larry Craig.
If a man and a woman are married and they fail to procreate, should their marriage expire? If they become unable to procreate, should their marriage become invalid?
Now, see, there you go again trying to be logical. These people don’t “get” logic. They prefer swooning.
No marriages among seniors!
I guess we all wish Markos had polled some other things, but I would really like to see tested Blankenhorn’s proposition that a man married to five women is, in fact, not violating his Marriage Rule of One-Man-One-Woman and his Marriage Rule of Two, because that man is in five one-man-one-woman marriages. You see, the six people aren’t in a group marriage unless the ceremony all happened at the same time.
I’m fascinated to know if this is a mainstream undiscovered view among the religious and culturally conservative.
Or, at the least, whether we could isolate the Mormons and Muslims in the poll (though why and practicing Muslim would support the hate party at this point, I don’t know).
While Mormon religious doctrine still condones polygamy, the Mormon people overwhelmingly hate it. The Church hierarchy tries to downplay that history and the groups that are practicing polygamy now are all apostate from the Salt Lake City main Mormon church. They had to go out on their own in order to keep polygamy going. It’s major hypocrisy for the Church to fight for one man, one woman language, though, when they not only still believe that one man can be married to multiple women in heaven, they keep it that way here. I was married in the temple to my ex-husband. If he marries again in the temple, he will be married to both me and his new wife for eternity. On the other hand, if I were to lose my mind and decide I wanted to remarry in the temple, I would have to get permission from the General Authorities for what is commonly called a temple divorce because women cannot be sealed to two men at the same time. So they don’t really believe that marriage in its purest Godliest form is one man and one woman only. They just go along with the fact that civil marriage is that way because they had to in order to become a state.
Yeah. And why doesn’t anybody ever bring up polyandry in these contexts?
Oh, they did in the trial.
And I’m sure they dug that prospect. I can’t decide which carries the most weight: their fear of women or their hatred of women. Actually, I suspect it’s a combination of both that drives them. I saw today that a bill is making its way through the Utah legislature allowing criminal charges against a woman seeking an illegal abortion. And then there are the brethren over in Bangladesh who sentenced a 16-yo who became pregnant during a rape to 101 lashes. None dare call it terrorism, though.
So many battles (COBRA, universal health care (including abortion services), freedom to marry the mate of your choice, freedom from corporate influence in government, etc.)! It just goes on and on.
If gays can marry, do Limpy Libmaugh’s past three marriages lose all meaning? Will he give up on all his future ones before they even start?
As Kos points out, the marriage Qs all reflect economic necessity, which, for a brief moment overcame True Beliefs.
BTW, mucho kudos for kos on the poll. Absolutely priceless. I’ve sent the link to all my peeps who care.
When Markos teased his poll last night on Countdown, I told Patrick I thought it had more to do with his upcoming book than anything else. I wasn’t surprised to read Markos on that topic this morning:
That makes me wonder if Markos is getting some pushback from the fact-checkers on his claims about the American Taliban. I’m glad to see the claims stand up, but it’s disturbing to think that fear of criticism from the right pushed Markos to spend money to commission a poll that confirms things we all know and understand to be true.
I mean, I wasn’t really surprised by any of these results: self-identified GOPs are a small and sorry lot these days. But it’s worrisome that Markos’ publisher may have feared their wrath so much, given the rather matter-of-fact claims Markos is probably making in his book.
Not at all. Confirming things we all know and understand to be true is the only way. This was a great expenditure of money.
Presuming infinite resources, sure. But I wonder if we will wish he had the money to poll a particular race sometime this election year, and must do without.
You, of all people, should know the value of evidence. You liveblogged the Prop 8 trial. The evidence in that trial was completely revealing. There is nothing more important than documenting that wingnuts are wingnuts. Nothing. No individual race could come close to the value of this poll.
Yup! Right out of the Repugs’ mouths they tell us what small minded creatures they are.
I agree.
The poll was well worth the money. You can’t beat proof.
Quibble: “evidence” not “proof.” In science, nothing is ever proved. Everything is just an hypothesis waiting for evidence to disprove or affirm it. Actually, not a quibble. Very important distinction. “They” (the other side) can amass their own evidence if they will, but my guess is they won’t try. Which is why the other side didn’t want to have the Prop H8 trial televised, even after the fact.
Quibble-quibble.
Proof:
1]evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
3]the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
5]Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Marriage is not about love? Well maybe their marriages Newt, George Will, Rush the party of family values has more sex scandals than a soap opera.
Beginning in the early 1990’s the process of marginalization became the base strategy for both parties. Party politics were changed by the never ending campaign cycle, by the need for huge bankrolls, and by modern media/communication that put everyone at the center of political action whenever they wanted to be.
Several strategic pundits identified the need to create a solid, immovable base which party leaders could count on for money, for crowds and to serve as surrogates. Behind the scenes political moxie required alliances with BIG LABOR, BIG BUSINESS, BIG LOBBY, BIG SPECIAL INTEREST.
The creation of the immovable core meant different things for each party. For the Dems it meant a big umbrella, embracing philosophies that were moderately conservative to downright liberal, a broad geography (excepting the South), multi racial/post racial alliances, and religious tolerance/acceptance. In other words open the doors very wide.
The GOP took a different tack. A small but strong umbrella, a narrower and narrower conservative political philosophy, focus on the South/rural America, appeal to the traditional American (i.e. white, Christian) and a presumption that Christianity is essentially triumphant. A narrower and narrower door.
An intriguing development has been one of style. The in-your-face, loud, dramatic, protest/rally/demonstration at one time belonged to the Democratic Party and its supporters. Today it seems to be more at home with the GOP and their supporters.
The result: these poll/survey outcomes are not in the least bit surprising.
Not only are they racists, but bigots also. I blame organized religion, particularly Catholic but also WASP.
I wish Kos’ poll had asked whether Republicans think gays/les should be allowed to serve in the United States Congress…
Last I did a poll, it wasn’t that expensive. That was 2 decades ago, so my info is out of date. But I’ll bet we can collect enough in small donations to do a poll. If the subject is LGBT, we could start by asking the Prop H8 plaintiffs for their list.
I was thinking of a different variation…that they should ask them if progressives should be able to serve in the military, marry, etc. They’d prob’ly say mostly no on that, too. s
“If you look at the Homer Simpsons of the world [with regards to low intelligence], there are a lot more men than women” Oh my…
“that fits nicely with my theory that men who marry women are IDIOTS” freepatriot Funny!
“SO, in Freep-theory, men who marry women are idiots. Perhaps, then, it’s time for the women involved to elevate their standards. I mean, who wants to be married to an idiot?” fatster O Snap!
Thanks for the chuckles!
If only 23% of Americans own up to being Republicans, why is it even necessary to find out how far off the wall they are?
Where did kos find so many Republicans to poll anyway?