News 12 Connecticut – SSM Poll Results
May 16th, 2007 by Dave
Cablevision’s News 12 Connecticut ran an one-day interactive poll of its subscribers on May 14, 2007. They simply asked:
Should gay marriage be allowed in Connecticut?
The results were: Yes (34%), No (66%)
Thank you CV News 12 and FIC for getting out this truth of how Connecticut citizens really feel about SSM.
The question of the poll was as simple and objective as possible.
Are the SSM advocates going to ignore it, or respond by saying that the CV 12 subscribers are primarily “right-wing, ignorant, religious bigots?
To follow up, News 12 Connecticut asked a similar question in a previous interactive poll. On February 21, 2007, they asked:
The results were: Yes (35%), No (65%)
Any poll that is taken on a website where people have to specifically log on to answer the question is warped. That is true whether the results are something I completely agree with or not. They are not random samplings of people’s opinion and as such mean very little. All it takes is a few well placed emails saying the poll exists and the results can be manipulated either way. Remember FRC’s marriage “poll” that they vowed to send the results to Congress? Oops, it came out overwhelmingly in support of LGBT people and was quickly denounced and or course never made it to Congress. Have you ever noticed that polls on Newsmax and World Net are always in favor of the “conservative” side, just like those on Mother Jones or The Nation will lean heavily to the left. Also to be considered – how many responded? Any way, if it makes you happy to delude yourself, go for it. Free country – well for some anyway.
I agree that some interactive polls include an element of self-selection, which can heavily distort the results. Moreover, some polling systems don’t sufficiently prevent against multiple votes by the same person. For example, WELI 960 AM has been running an ongoing poll on radio personality Jerry Kristafer’s page, as promoted on the air. The question reads:
The results have been tracking at about 5% Yes, and 95% No. It seems obvious that these results cannot be considered as representative of a random sampling of Connecticut residents. The audience is self-selecting, and largely conservative, because of the line-up of programs carried immediately afterwards … Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.
There is also another way in which a poll can be manipulated: by the phrasing and presentation of the questions. We see this quite often in polls that ask respondents to choose between SSM, civil unions, or else no change from the status quo – as if these were the only options worthy of consideration. Gay rights advocates happily aggregate the percentages in support of SSM and civil unions to justify their legislative agenda. But what about folks who feel that a suitable solution exists in between civil unions and no change from the status quo? For example, what about those who feel that “domestic partnership” or “reciprocal beneficiary” status is more appropriate? Their opinion seems pigeonholed by the survey format, and most likely they are being counted among the supporters of civil unions because respondents are left with an awkward choice at best – due the design of the survey questions.
We could easily see “polls” like this, from either end of the political spectrum, reporting just about anything in terms of the results. Left-leaning groups like GLAD happily cite the polls that support SSM without reservation, just as conservative groups tend to promote findings that oppose SSM.
What makes the poll results by “News 12 Connecticut” so interesting is that they are potentially broad-reaching (in terms of total audience), apparently non-partisan, properly controlled to prevent double-voting, and consistently reproducible. The logon screen that some have complained about actually ensures that only Cablevision subscribers are able to vote in the poll, and that each subscriber votes only once. The existence of the poll was widely publicized via its regular television news coverage, and subscribers would use their regular email accounts and passwords to log on to the service in order to respond to the poll. Cablevision is the 5th largest provider of cable TV services in the United States, and its service area within Connecticut encompasses several hundred thousand households. The poll results appear to indicate that SSM is opposed by roughly a 2-to-1 ratio.
But in the final analysis, a poll is just that – a sampling that only serves a clue to the potential opinion of the population at large. The only true way to know the opinion of the population as a whole is to hold a referendum. And, as we have been saying for some time, this is an entirely appropriate way to address the SSM question. Let the people decide!
The question must be asked: Why should we be polling straight people on what rights gay people get?
No. Really. The question doesn’t need to be asked.
Sorry
Chris,
I’m sure that Dave and others can answer your question better than my post here, but here are a couple of simple, common sense answers:
1. “Marriage” is not a true “right” in the sense of other “civil rights.”
2. You and the other SSM advocates cannot “get” SSM (and half of “gay people” don’t even WANT SSM) without affecting marriage, family, and all of society for ALL of the other 97% plus of the population–at least **eventually**. I know that you and the other radical activists deny that, but here’s an example of **unintended consequences** for you to consider:
Before pregnant teenagers and unwed mothers received welfare payments (back several decades ago), I’m sure the advocates of such legislation argued that this would give the children a chance for a better life, and would be ‘no skin off anyone else’s nose.’
Well, look how well that has worked—with these unprepared young moms keeping their babies instead of placing them for adoption. That ill-considered legislation has resulted in millions of children being raised by uneducated single moms, to continue a cycle of high school dropouts, welfare dependency, more unwed parenting, more youth violence, substance abuse, etc. etc. Not to mention the fact that ALL of society pays the costs in terms of decreased quality of life, as well as higher taxes to fund all the prisons, remedial education and career programs, counseling, substance abuse treatment, etc.
Actually Chris, I apologize. I shouldn’t have replied with such snarkiness. Mea culpa.
Chris,
Your position sounds remarkably similar to MassEquality.org and its stance on the proposed Constitutional amendment in that state. As they say on their home page, “It’s Wrong to Vote on Anyone’s Rights”. Knowing how threatened they must feel by the prospect of the citizens of that state actually expressing their opinions on SSM, rather than just a few sequestered black-robed judges, their reaction is quite understandable.
Nevertheless, a plebiscite is unquestionably consistent with the principles of democracy. As expressed by Abraham Lincoln, our nation was born to a form of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Why shouldn’t all people within society, regardless of their sexual orientation, have a voice on this issue? After all, none of us live within a vacuum. This “alleged” right to same-sex marriage, if enacted, would compel everyone – gay and straight alike – to give legal recognition to it, and it would fundamentally change society as we know it.
In addition, as Tricia correctly inferred, SSM is not a fundamentally inalienable right. In the sense that it may potentially be viewed as a civil right, SSM falls into the category of “rights” that conceivably can be taken away by legislative action in the same way that they can be created originally. One has freedom of choice, and freedom of action, with or without SSM; your liberty is not impaired. Some people tend to brush aside the procreative aspect of marriage as irrelevant, but it is that quality that marks the institution as being derived from an inalienable right. Human beings have the inalienable right to come together, to become mothers and fathers, and make babies. Providing a societal structure to manage parentage is at the heart of marriage, and consequently it is and will remain a uniquely heterosexual institution.
Although some of the most hardened anti-religious zealots may object to this term “inalienable” as being based upon religious views, in fact it is derived from usage in English common law; and likewise the similar ideas of “natural rights” can trace their roots at least to the Roman Empire and ancient Greek philosophers. Like it or not, the fact that our own country was founded upon such principles is evident through any plain reading of the Declaration of Independence. And exactly who authorized and empowered our Constitution, which is essentially a social contract? Look to the very first words: “We the People”!
I have a feeling that, as the folks in Massachusetts get closer to having their vote, we are going to hear more alarmist talk based upon claims regarding a “tyranny of the majority”. But perhaps we ought to be equally concerned about the “tyranny of the minority”, as described by Daniel B. Jeffs:
Do these qualities seem familiar at all to anyone? Radical activism that targets the courts, biased mainstream media, and students being indoctrinated into a new philosophy of political correctness – all of these can be readily observed today as the means through which the minority tyrannizes our society. It’s high time we found the courage and moral fortitude to exercise our right of self-determination.
Well, if the people get to vote about my life then we need to go back in time and vote on the “rights” of the Roman church to practice it’s religion here, vote on the “rights” of slaves and descendants of slaves to be considered fully human, vote on the “rights” of women to be anything but receptacles for a man’s seed. And I suppose to be fair we need to vote on the “rights” of the Native Americans to live in small little parcels of land that we so graciously give them, vote on the “rights” of the Irish, the Chinese, the Mexicans and any other group of people that we have used to do our dirty work over the existence of this country. Imagine how different this country would be if all these things had been put up to popular vote. Yet you folks will go throught semantic gymnastics to justify exactly that for the “rights” of LGBT people. Sad what fear and hatred will drive people to do. You’re certainly correct when you say that LGBT marriate will change this country, but only for the better. Your hallucinations of all the horrible things that will happen to the family have no basis in realilty and the “studies” rely on are nothing more that biased manipulation of other’s research. You whine about the courts except of course when the courts rule in your favor. The courts have ALWAYS been the only place where the first footsteps for equality have been made. Legislatures are/were a distant second and the people usually drag along decades later.
Tricia, after reading your hysterical statements about welfare and pregnancy I can’t help but wonder – is there a right wing people hating lie that you don’t swallow with out giving it a second of thought?
We did vote for those things — when the bill of rights and subsequent amendments were ratified. In contrast, radical homosexuals are attempting to force us “to go back in time” to a time when we were ruled and told to comply – or else. Circumventing the democratic process by begging robed masters on the court to legislate gay marriage upon us is hardly the high ground, my friend.
Homosexuality is a choice not a “right”. The myth being pushed is that people are born “gay”. There is no scientific evidence for this what so ever. Any one with a basic understanding of human biology knows that. But the point of this post is that the majority of people when allowed to vote privately as their conscience dictates and with out fear of “gay” reprisals would vote against SSM. In their hearts they know that it is wrong and bad for society and just plain unnatural.
“In their hearts they know that it is wrong and bad for society and just plain unnatural. ”
And at one time people “knew” the same thing about interracial marriage, marriage between religions and even marriage between different sects of Christianity. Fact is quite often in the history of this country what the people “knew” was dead wrong and ultimately seen that way by the majority. Your continued theocratic assault on the freedoms of US citizens and your attempts to destroy the Constitution of the US and each individual state will in time backfire. That is a given, too bad so many innocent people have to pay the price for your ignorance/arrogance.