A new poll sponsored by the Courant has found that Connecticut is evenly split about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Those strongly or somewhat favoring same-sex marriage led those who somewhat or strongly oppose it by the narrow margin of 49%-46%–within the poll’s 4% margin of error.
62% strongly or somewhat favor civil unions, the poll found, while only 30% oppose them.
This shows some movement from an April, 2005 Quinnipiac Poll which found that voters favored civil unions 56%-37%, and disapproved of same-sex marriage 53%-42%.
Here’s the all-too-predictable response:
Brian Brown, the executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, dismissed the poll results, saying the questions were skewed to draw a favorable response. Brown and other opponents of gay marriage want the issue to be put directly to the state’s voters in the form of a referendum. (Altimari)
I’m not sure where Brian is getting that from. Where, exactly, are the questions posted? I don’t even see them in the paper this morning. How can he tell that they are skewed if he hasn’t seen them?
Regardless, it’s a favorite tactic of this particular group to cry “bias” whenever it suits them, and especially whenever the news doesn’t go their way, so any claim of bias from them is not particularly credible. (Biased polls, by the way, are something they would never do.)
Let’s assume the poll is accurate for a moment. It may not be, of course. Polls can be wrong, and this one could certainly be off by a lot. But if it is accurate, then there has been a small but significant thaw towards same-sex marriage since civil unions passed in 2005.
It also suggests that if, as the FIC wants, there is an unprecedented statewide referendum on same-sex marriage, the side in favor could actually win. This might not be a twenty year fight after all.
So for advocates of same-sex marriage, there’s hope in this poll. However, it is only one poll, and opponents of same-sex marriage will be quick to dismiss its findings until the next poll comes out.
Source
Altimari, Daniela. “Sacred Or Civil: State Split On Marriage.” Hartford Courant 29 April, 2007.
13 responses so far ↓
Lawlor and MacDonald are going to get this passed in historic fashion. The only question will be if Rell dares a veto. Having alienated the Right, my bet is she’ll sign it. Otherwise, watch her ratings plummet across the spectrum.
>>watch her ratings plummet across the spectrum.
If she signs it she takes a hit from the right, if she doesn’t the left - the whole non-issue (considereing we already have civil union) is little less than a trap.
The hit job on Tocco Sullivan by Lawlor and McDonald is complete.
Chase Rogers was obviously pushed through the legislative process because she was pro gay marriage, as opposed to Sullivan who was not. If this comes up for a vote in the House or Senate, this will be a session long remembered, regardless of how it plays out.
The hit job on Tocco Sullivan by Lawlor and McDonald is complete.
Chase Rogers was obviously pushed through the legislative process because she was pro gay marriage, as opposed to Sullivan who was not.
Um, didn’t the anti-gay marriage governor nominate Chase Rogers for Chief Justice?
Yes, she did nominate her. And she knows Rogers will make gay marriage state law via the Supreme Court, which would take Rell off the hook with this particular political football.
If you think gay marriage will get through the legislature anytime soon I’ve got a bridge for sale.
“Margin of error” in a poll like that translates into “margin of failure” for elected officials. Who wants to be a “yes” vote for gay marriage just as public financing of campaigns kicks in? Not many.
Here’s my summary of this poll and review of past CT polls on marriage equality and civil unions. Given the poll results, the growing acceptance of homosexuality, and the total failure of marriage equality opponents to exploit homophobia to their electoral advantage, I think that state legislators have nothing to lose if they do the right thing and support marriage equality. Please contact your legislators and ask them to do so.
Mike,
If Family Institute Backed Gregg Hannan gets the nod from the Republicans in 08 I’m betting his getting the funds from public financing will alow him to get his message out much better and will INCREASE the % he loses by.
The hit job on Tocco Sullivan by Lawlor and McDonald is complete.
Chase Rogers was obviously pushed through the legislative process because she was pro gay marriage, as opposed to Sullivan who was not.
I’m not even touching the first part of your statement, b/c I think we’ve argued over that particular conspiracy theory enough on this site. But as for the second part–first, who knows how Rogers would come out on the Kerrigan case? Who knows how ANY of the justices would come out on it, for that matter? If you think you know based on past decisions, I think you’re in for a surprise.
Plus, Rogers may DQ herself on the case, as she stated clearly during her confirmation hearings that she would DQ herself on cases in which parties are represented by Robinson & Cole, since her husband works for that firm. R&C filed an amicus curiae brief in Kerrigan. The firm isn’t representing a party, so it’s more of a gray area (plus there are so MANY amicus briefs, and so many people and groups represented by those briefs, that there may be additional concerns for other justices, so mayeb it’s all a wash anyway), but I would think there’s a very good chance she may not sit on the case. So much for your theory.
While I don’t post many comments, I noticed someone mentioned my name and I thought I would add a few thoughts - even if they are unrelated to the topic above:
1. I am not running in 2008 for family reasons (real reasons - twin baby girls due soon! - not the ones politicians usually cite and then run for something else);
2. If I were to run, I would not accept taxpayer money to fund my campaign - even if that meant more money than I was able to raise. Voluntary participation is key to a free and democratic debate; and
3. The amounts provided by public financing for state senate and state representative are not sufficient to unseat an incumbent. Check to see how much Ed Meyer and Gayle Schlossberg spent to defeat incumbents in 2004 - about double the amount provided under public financing.
Campaigns require many activities which cost lots of money. Spending less means communicating with voters less and that’s not a good way to win elections.
Sorry this wasn’t related to the same-sex marriage debate, but I just wanted to set the record staright. I know everyone was anxiously awaiting my response.:)
Thanks for your comments, Gregg. I’ll be interested to see how many other candidates simply won’t accept public funds next year.
Gregg,
Congrats on the twins!!
We’ll get a better idea how hard it is or is not to beat incumbents after a few cycles with public financing in place.It will certainly be much easier to mount a campaign against one and I think even you will have to admit that.
I was hoping you would run again.Again and again candidates backed by the Family institute whine they lost because “they couldn’t get their message out”.
I believe public financing will prove that’s hogwash and was hoping a second run by you would prove that.
Genghis,
I suspect the list of challengers refusing public funds will be very small - if any at all. Easy money is too hard to turn down for most.
I also suspect most incumbents will, if they do not accept public funds, stay within the limits. It makes no sense for them to hand extra money to their already underdog challengers.
Open seats in competitive districts will probably be funded privately. It would be too risky to leave that much to chance for either side.
ctkeith,
Thanks for the kind words.
I agree in part with what I think you are saying- there will be more challengers and less open seats. That is a good thing.
I would disagree, though, if you believe that more challengers will be successful because of public financing. Only the laziest of incumbents in competitive districts will be at risk - and then only in “tidal wave” years like the last 3 Presidential years in CT.
As for not getting my message out, there is only one person to blame (me)and I don’t whine about it. I knew I needed to spend well over $100,000 (and spend it well) to even have a chance. Sen. Meyer has told me he believed he needed to spend at least $125,000 to hold the seat.
Based on conversations with many people on either side of the aisle, I am aware that my view of public financing is one not shared by many. I agree with you, ctkeith - we’ll see what happens in the next few election cycles. Since Republicans (and conservatives) are such a minority at the moment, I hope I am wrong.
You must log in to post a comment.