Two thirds oppose "lesbian rights"
Thanks for voting, here are the results so far:
Should lesbians and single women have access to IVF?
33% (1673 votes)
66% (3369 votes)
Total of 5042 votes
There’s nothing that reveals the zeal and ability of zionists to destroy this Christian nation more brilliantly than the battle between ‘we the people’ and our own politicians in their attempt to impose "legalized" sodomy on our youth, coupled with the ability and willingness of "polling organizations" and other jewish controlled "news sources" to misrepresent American public opinion. In 1991, where The General Social Survey showed that the percentage of Americans who viewed "gay sex as always wrong" was 71%, The Gallup Organization was reporting that only 48% believed homosexual relations should not be legal, a disconnect of serious proportions.
"On November 3, 1993, by a vote of 53.4% to 46.6%, the voters of the State of Colorado passed an initiated amendment to the Colorado Constitution referred to as Amendment 2. That amendment provides: No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation". The courts struck it down, in violation of the will of ‘we the people’, due mostly to advocacy work by non-credible and irresponsible "polling" and "news" organizations like Gallup, who reported at that time that only 48% of the people they polled "think homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal". More reputable polling organizations reported that "Seventy-four percent of Hawaii residents polled are opposed to same-sex marriage, and yet just four members of the Hawaii Senate were able to kill a constitutional amendment that had already passed the House of Representatives by a two-thirds majority. This action by four senators to prohibit Hawaii residents from voting has citizens outraged". This 26% disconnect between Gallup and reality was the beginning of the end for the credibility of formerly objective polling and news sources like Gallup.
The schism widened in 1996 when Gallup reported that opposition to legalizing sodomy was now down to 44%, yet "The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) specifically states that the federal government will not recognize a same-sex relationship treated like a marriage. This means that, under the current law, parties to a civil union will not be able to qualify for any of the benefits and protections contained in the 1049 federal laws affecting the spousal relationship". "DOMA became Public Law 104-199 on September 21, 1996"
Encouraged by their previous failures, as most "liberals" always are, Gallup then reported in 1999 that opposition to legalized homosexual relations was down to a mere 43%. But that was less than one year after "The electorate of Hawaii voted on November 4, 1998 to amend the state constitution to permit the legislature to ban same-gender marriage, effectively ending the possibility that marriage will be granted to same-gender couples in that state." "69% of voters approved a ballot initiative which changed the state constitution to allow the legislature to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples", meaning that Gallup was now under-reporting opposition to legalized homosexual relations by 26%. Was Hawaii some remarkable exception to the norm? No. "In Alaska the case for same-sex unions was weaker, but still a threat to traditional marriage. In February a lower court determined that denying homosexuals the right to marry violated the Alaska constitution. In response, 68% of voters approved a measure which amended the state’s constitution to limit marriage to one man, one woman". Gallup was again off by 25-26%, which in polling is much bigger than a mile.
False information from Gallup has now become legion. Their report that the percentage of voters who favored the legalization of homosexual relations was now up to 50% encouraged the "liberal" California court to attempt to attempt to legalize "gay marriages". Even a Field Poll conducted prior to the passage of Proposition 22 suggested that Gallup was not far off target, indicating that only 51% of Californians supported it. Yet with all of the misinformation and false information, with Gallup proclaiming from the rafters that opposition to legalized sodomy was down to 43%, 63% of California voters still gave common sense and Christian principles a landslide victory on March 7, 2000 and passed this ballot initiative to BAN such marriages. Vermont’s courts attempted to do the same thing, and Vermont voters reacted by passing a similar initiative to ban same-sex marriages. In December 2000, "In Nebraska, unofficial election results indicate an anti-Gay ballot measure there passed by a margin of 70 percent to 30 percent among 640,310 voters. Initiative 416 calls for amending the state constitution so marriage is recognized only for heterosexual couples". "In Nevada, unofficial election results indicate 589,865 residents there voted on a proposed anti-Gay ballot measure and approved it by a margin of 69.4 percent to 30.5 percent. The measure sought to amend the state constitution so that only a marriage between a man and a woman is legally recognized in that state". "In Maine, the Human Rights Campaign supported the efforts of the YES on 6 for Equal Rights Campaign. Question 6 gave voters the opportunity to enact a law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing and public accommodations. If it had passed, it would have marked the first time that voters had passed a state law to protect lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Voters in Washington state rejected a similar initiative several years ago after the Legislature passed a measure requiring a ballot vote".
Again, Gallup was off by a mile. State after state after state proved that their biased sodomite polls under-represented opposition to "legalization of homosexual relations" by a minimum of 20%, all the way up to 27%.
Is Gallup "the gang that can’t shoot straight", are they all faggots, or are they so intent on destroying the moral fiber of this Christian nation that they just can’t permit a mere thing like facts to get in the way? As if though 35 state initiatives to ban "gay marriages" isn’t enough to get the message across to these despicable "liberals", they then attempted to change the wording to "civil unions", JUST in order to attempt to side step the restriction on "gay marriages" implemented by ‘we the people’ in legitimate public mandates. Such weasel wording will be met with the same resolve that the immoral supporters of affirmative action met, no matter how disconnected from reality "polling organizations" like Gallup get.
None of the organizations which pride themselves on being objective pollsters were even close to reality. The Pascoe Poll showed 56% of voters opposed "gay marriages", which was the closest to reality, but no state’s initiative passed by less than 63% and the average was closer to 70%. Environics poll was even further off the mark than Gallup, and actual public opinion against legalized sodomy exceeded Gallup’s estimate by almost two thirds.
The icing on the cake was in 2005 when 76% of the voters in Texas said not just NO, but ".ell NO" to sodomites with Proposition 2 (a proposition which the "news" media hardly wrote ten words about).
Is it really this difficult to get more accurate polling results than this? Absolutely not. NORC managed to break down American public opinion by all kinds of racial, age, and sex categories several decades ago, and even now their results were the closest to the actual vote counts in state after state. Has public opinion changed since NORC conducted their survey in 1985-1989? Not according to REAL people going to REAL poll booths and creating LANDSLIDE VICTORIES against sodomites and the amoral crew who support them. Their survey showed that 69-70% of the voting age group between 25 to 44 opposed same sex relationships, which is exactly how the voters of each state voted.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:06 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; ChasNemo@aol.com; Postherguy@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Md. attorney general: State to recognize same-sex marriages … – 3 hours ago
Above the Law
|Md. attorney general: State to recognize same–sex marriages … – 3 hours ago
"State agencies in Maryland will recognize out-of-state gay marriages as of right now," Gansler said at a news conference explaining the effect of a …
Washington Post – 54 related articles »
Md. attorney general: State to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere
142 Comments | View All »
Log In Again?
We’ve made some updates to washingtonpost.com’s Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Your browser’s settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 24, 2010; 4:28 PM
Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) said Wednesday that effective immediately, and until challenged in court, the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and that Maryland agencies should begin affording out-of-state gay couples all the rights they have been awarded in other places.
"State agencies in Maryland will recognize out-of-state gay marriages as of right now," Gansler said at a news conference explaining the effect of a long-awaited opinion he released Wednesday morning.
Earlier in the day, most lawmakers in the state capital had interpreted Gansler’s opinion as having not gone that far. But Gansler said that in his role as the chief legal adviser to all executive branch agencies, his opinion now dictates how state agencies should respond when same-sex couples from elsewhere request benefits and legal protections they would have been awarded in the four New England states and Iowa, where same-sex marriages are legal.
The issue will soon become far less abstract in Maryland, with the District expected to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples this spring.
"It’s not that foreign of a concept, I mean, it’s just people, it’s just like any other heterosexual couples," Gansler said. "However a heterosexual couple is treated that was validly married in Maryland or elsewhere, [a same-sex couple] will be treated like that here in Maryland, unless and until a court or the legislature decides differently."
Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) responded to Gansler’s opinion with a statement saying: "We will be guided by the Attorney General’s thorough analysis and legal advice on this matter. . . . I expect all state agencies to work with the Attorney General’s office to ensure compliance with the law."
Many in Annapolis on Wednesday afternoon were still struggling with both the political and policy implications of Gansler’s decision, and even advocates said that they expected lengthy court battles and discussions with O’Malley’s administration would be needed to further refine what Maryland may offer same-sex couples from elsewhere.
Several legal scholars said the opinion appeared designed to spur court action, and Gansler acknowledged that he expects his opinion will be challenged quickly. He said it will likely be up to the state’s highest court to issue a final verdict, but he said he believes his opinion now provides a road map that didn’t exist for same-sex couples to win in court.
"People have always had the ability to sue and say I was married in Iowa, I was married in Connecticut, I was married in Massachusetts and I’m being denied those rights here in Maryland," Gansler said. "They could have always sued. I assume this will give them a floor plan and a map on how to do it because I think the law is pretty clear."
Jana Singer, a University of Maryland law professor who was one of 60 lawyers across the state who filed briefs to Gansler as he drafted the opinion over the past year, said that the opinion should affect a large swath of legal, health and other benefits for same-sex couples who reside in or visit Maryland.
The opinion would likely mean same-sex spouses of Maryland employees would be eligible for the same health benefits as heterosexual couples, she said. Same-sex couples would also be given legal rights, such as the ability to sue for wrongful death of a same-sex spouse.
Gansler said his opinion would not affect same-sex couples’ taxes, which are governed by federal law.
Under O’Malley’s administration, Maryland has significantly expanded benefits to couples who register as domestic partners, but Singer said same-sex couples married elsewhere would no longer have to go through that step to get many of the same protections.
Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel) said he was convinced Gansler’s opinion would be overturned by courts and promised to bring articles of impeachment against the attorney general for trying to usurp Maryland law, which strictly defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.