The gaying of America:Yet another story you will not see in the liberal press

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Nice to know I live in a normal state.

March 18, 2004 -- Leave gay marriage to states, not U.S. Constitution, Pennsylvania voters tell Quinnipiac University poll; but voters oppose gay marriage 2 – 1

Home>Institutes>Polling Institute>Pennsylvania Polls>March 18, 2004 -- Leave gay marriage to states, not U.S. Constitution, Pennsylvania voters tell Quinnipiac University poll; but voters oppose gay marriage 2 – 1















-- Quick Links -- Arnold Bernhard Library Athletics Blackboard Bookstore Calendar Center for Excellence Contact Us Course Finder Dean's List Directions to Campus E-mail Access Employment Opps. Home Page Intramurals Polling Institute QUDaily QU Online Recreation Site Map Student Handbook University Catalog University Directory WebAdvisor Webcams
Laws regulating gay marriage should be set by the states, not by amending the U.S. Constitution, Pennsylvania voters say 50 - 38 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Keystone State voters oppose gay marriage 63 – 31 percent.

By a narrower 50 – 41 percent margin, Pennsylvania voters oppose civil unions for same sex partners, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

Only 5 percent of voters list gay marriage as the most important issue in deciding their presidential vote. Economic conditions is most important, 34 percent say, followed by 20 percent who list health care, 16 percent who list terrorism, 11 percent who say Iraq and another 11 percent who say taxes.

“Even though gay marriage is not a big issue in the presidential campaign, Pennsylvania voters are overwhelmingly against these unions. Two-thirds reject gay marriage and a majority don't want civil unions between gays legalized. This is in keeping with Pennsylvania's generally conservative tradition on controversial social issues including abortion. In an earlier Quinnipiac University poll, 58 percent said they believed homosexuality was morally wrong,” said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Asked specifically about the issue of same sex unions, 14 percent of Pennsylvania voters say it is “extremely important” in deciding their presidential vote, while 13 percent say it is “very important;” 30 percent say it is “somewhat important” and 42 percent say it is “not important.”

Rendell, Specter Approval

Gov. Ed Rendell has a 46 – 35 percent approval rating, compared to 48 – 36 percent in a February 19 Quinnipiac University poll.

Sen. Arlen Specter has a 49 – 36 percent approval, compared to 53 – 32 percent in a February 18 poll. Only 36 percent of Pennsylvania voters want to see Specter reelected this year, while 44 percent want a new senator, compared to 40 – 44 percent for reelecting Specter in the February 18 poll.

But Specter still tops U.S. Rep. Joseph Hoeffel, the possible Democratic challenger, 45 – 29 percent, compared to 50 – 31 percent last month.

Specter gets a 35 – 24 percent favorability rating among Pennsylvania voters, with 30 percent mixed and 9 percent who don’t know enough to form an opinion.

Looking at Rep. Hoeffel, 70 percent haven’t formed an opinion. And 66 percent haven’t formed an opinion of U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, a possible Republican primary challenger for Specter’s seat.

“While 44 percent would like to see someone other than Specter in the Senate, that someone else does not include either Congressman Toomey or Congressman Hoeffel at this point. Both are so unknown that more than two-thirds of Pennsylvania voters don't have an opinion of them,” Richards said.

From March 9 – 15, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,022 Pennsylvania registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and the nation as a public service and for research.

 

[barman]

The simple reason it should be left to the states is that there is insufficient support to amend the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of making gay marriage illegal. Therefore any pursuit of such an amendment is a waste of valuable energy and resources.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Even though gay marriage is not a big issue in the presidential campaign, Pennsylvania voters are overwhelmingly against these unions. Two-thirds reject gay marriage and a majority don't want civil unions between gays legalized

Got it?

folks around these parts do not want your deviant sexual activity sanctioned by any level of government.

 

[BuckFush]

And if the majority of those asked were in favor of sending blacks to interment camps you'd be all for that too I suppose.

Why the hell should anyone care what someone else does with their penises and assholes? They aren't forcing YOU to marry a man. If you want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage how about making divorce illegal?

 

[BuckFush]

A similar percentage of those living in Mississippi in the 1950s were in favor of making blacks sit in the back of the bus. Therefore if you were living there at that time you would be saying that "folks around these parts don't want niggers sitting in the front of the bus... got it?"

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Uh gays can vote and are interviewed for polls last I looked,

were blacks in 1950's?

Who cares though right, it all sounds good afterall blacks are humans and gays are humans too,

shame that sticking a penis in a man's ass has been abnormal and deviant behavior for centuries,

thank god my neighbors are normal,

read poll results?

Got it?

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And if the majority of those asked were in favor of sending blacks to interment camps you'd be all for that too I suppose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems you have roles confused, you are the moronic ignorant I adopt anything anti bush idiot, remember?

Yea interment camps alot like sodomy, they get greased up first too?

 

[Mr NJ Sports]

Why do the gays always say "what we do in our bedroom is none of the governments business", but when it suits their agenda they have no problem telling everyone what they do in their bedrooms?

Non gays should also be able to be same sex married.

Just say you have no significant other and your friend is sick and you want to be able to share your health care with him or her, why is that not allowed if gay marriage is allowed?

Just leave the marriage between a man and a woman and if all these other people wanna live together or do whatever let them do it . Having said that , do we need to see it on the TV every time to gays decide to "get married"?

 

[barman]

Whether you or I like it, or whether we don't, it doesn't matter.

The current legal bans against gays marrying are unconstitutional and once the bevy of cases that have been started in the past couple years reach the SCOTUS, the issue will be settled and the current discrimination which only allows legal marriage benefits to heterosexuals will be a policy of the past.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Really?

Then I suppose marrying more than one woman, marrying you rfirst cousins, maybe even pets is unconstitutional?

Anything to get more folks on the government dole, right?

Even sacrifice normal sexual relations all in the spirit of getting more folks government money.

It ain't against my constitution, you know the one that says SSI is for married men and women, not men and men.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> current discrimination which only allows legal marriage benefits to heterosexuals will be a policy of the past <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Literal translation-if I could get my phucking pet a government check every month, damn straight I would.

 

[UncleMoneybags]

barman,

Unconstitutional? I guess the founding father's should have read what they wrote because homosexuality could get you killed (no marriage benefits or even rights there), pierced or castrated depending on whom you asked. I love it when people bring the founding father's into the mix because more often than not they have no idea what the founding father's opinions on homosexuality were. Gays complain about double standards all damn day but where I work there are double standards that favor them (I'll use that term loosely).

 

[Oceans11]

When your constitution was written there were a lot of things that were different.

Slavery
Witchcraft
Kill the gay bastards
No Jews here thankyou

whatever

I think that the men who wrote it were aware of that, and entrusted the spirit in which it was written to be defended by future generations.

 

[noital]

If it is entrusted to the right there probably will not be many future generaiioms.

 

[xpanda]

SP: you afraid that same-sex non-couples will marry for the benefits? Then why is this same phenomenon not rampant among opposite-sex individuals. I'm not married, and I have lots of single male friends, so why not marry one of them so that I can have his benefits or whatever perk I'm after? Because it's stupid, that's why.

Never mind the fact that technically a marriage has to be consummated eventually. How many straight guys do you know willing to sacrifice their reputation and their sphincter for the right to visit their buddy in the ICU?

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Really it is stupid?

Not quite as stupid as trying to legalize it for any other reason.

legalize so they are accepted in society?
Good one.

legalize so why?

so they can suck money out of the government coffers is why.

absolutely zero other reason.

 

[xpanda]

Surely you've been to at least one wedding in your lifetime. Ask yourself why those two people got married. Chances are pretty good the reasons are the same for homosexual couples. This insistence you have that somehow same-sex marriage will deplete the state of funds makes no bloody sense.

But, if you're going to make homosexual marriage illegal on the grounds that the state may end up inadvertently giving funds to these lazy gay bastards, you should probably make marriage illegal all across the board. After all, in your vacuum controlled world, marriage is completely reduced to a money-making liberal conspiracy to cause the Gates and Trumps to be robbed of their hard-earned cash and fall into sublime misery.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Really ya think,

ya think the circus and parade to San Fransisco had anything at all do with love?

good one, remember the stampede was for my tax dollars.

ROTFLMAO yea that really was a good one.

 

[xpanda]

The parades in the streets of San Fran had little to do with love and more to do with activism and rights, of course. However, that doesn't mean that gay marriage would, in general once it's passed, not be all about love.

When the suffragettes were handcuffing themselves to carriages to earn themselves the right to vote, it had less to do with the act of voting as it did with activism and general rights. I suppose you consider this also to be an enormous fallibility of pro-action that deemed the rights of women ultimately irrelevant?

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

I was impressed with their ability to blaze a trail across the country to get some judge who defied state law to give them a certificate that would probably be declared null and void in two weeks.

Add in the public ostracization and the entire thing is one great grab for government money, period!!!

You repeated attempts to compare it to hetero sexual marriage, slavery or any other aggreived party over the years, is juvenile, has more holes than swiss cheese and not enough time in the day to ridicule you properly for it.