This morning at 10 Eastern, the Family Research Council plans to unveil the results of a poll that suggests that candidates' support for state-based constitutional amendments banning gay marriage is a major benefit at the polls. Politico's Mike Allen has the scoop:
PRODUCER ALERT -- The Family Research Council, Washington's leading lobby for social conservatives, will release a report at 10 a.m. on the political impact of 'marriage protection amendments' on the November ballot in California, Florida, and Arizona. The survey conducted by Wilson Research Strategies asks likely voters if they 'would be more or less likely to vote for a presidential candidate' who supports measures on the November ballot that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.EXCLUSIVE -- THE FINDINGS: 'Overall, voters are more likely to support a candidate who supports statewide amendments to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman [49-29]. ... Independent and older voters in particular are receptive to this position. This issue, if effectively communicated, has the potential to put Obama in a difficult position vis-à-vis his Independent and soft Democrat supporters. This is particularly true for states in the Pacific and the Deep South, where these amendments will be on the ballot. Given his perceived difficulties in shoring up his conservative base, as well as the data's obvious strengths among Independents and soft Democrats, this position is one that should resonate with possible McCain voters.'
George W. Bush declined to support state-based marriage amendments in 2004, but he reaped political benefits from their appearances on ballots in states like Ohio because he backed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same sex marriage. McCain, meanwhile, opposes a federal amendment. So his decision on how strongly to get behind a handful of state-based amendments this year will go a long way in determining how much Christian Right organizational support he can depend on.
6

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Could someone please explain what heterosexual marriage needs "protection" from? I mean, it's not like they're no longer allowed to marry now that gay Americans can. Why do heterosexuals need special rights?
Of course it would help McCain, but would it help him enough?
Considering that a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is never going to get 67 votes in the Senate it would seem a waste of time even to talk about it.
Dan, don't tell me you actually believe the Heterosexual Family "Research" Council actually did some research.
From their website (evn though I felt dirty just visiting it)...
"the question is raised whether the church and parachurch ministries can continue to reserve their rites and access to their facilities and programs to heterosexual couples."
They don't even want us to be able to go to their churches! That's some 'Christianity' and it sure puts the lie to the 'promise' that whosoever will may come'. Oh, I temporarily forgot - Christ made that promise, not the "F"RC.
Hate sure is ugly when it comes out of the closet.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.