Poll: 61 Percent Of Americans Accept Gay Rights And Even A Gay President

gay rights 1Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and other Republicans who could get the Republican nomination in 2016 will be sailing into the wind of popular opinion during the general election when it comes to their opposition to gay rights. A new poll from the Washington Post shows that more Americans are comfortable with the idea of a gay or even atheist person as president than an evangelical Christian or member of the Tea Party.



Yes, you heard that right – and that should send chills down the spine of the Republican Party.

The majority of Americans are not only rooting for marriage equality — they’re also fine with the idea of a gay president, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. In fact, most Americans would rather see a gay candidate for president than an evangelical Christian or a Tea Partier jockeying for the White House.

In the poll, conducted by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies for the news organizations in late April, 61 percent of respondents said they’d be either enthusiastic about or comfortable with a gay presidential candidate. For an evangelical candidate, just 52 percent said they’d be enthusiastic. And in a showing of how unpopular the Tea Party is, just 33 percent said they’d react with enthusiasm or at least a degree of comfort to a candidate affiliated with that conservative movement. (Source)

This isn’t just my usual disdain for the Republican Party (a party I used to belong to), this is the opinion of American voters who have accepted the fact that gay rights are part of the 14th Amendment. People are getting tired of the conservative culture wars and they’ve realized that two men or two women getting married and raising children together have no effect on their lives. Gay marriage hasn’t threatened traditional heterosexual marriage, and the polls show that the American public has come to that conclusion.

The problem for Republicans is that they’re so dependent on the far right which refuses to abandon their opposition to gay rights. Ted Cruz and others can’t back away from the years of rhetoric that they’ve invested in trying to convince voters that the greatest threat to American exceptionalism is Adam and Steve getting married and enjoying the same rights as everyone else.


This won’t be too much of an issue for Republican candidates in deep red states throughout the Bible Belt, but on a national level, any candidate that tries to run on a platform that includes opposition to gay rights will find themselves at a serious disadvantage, even with voters that may agree with them on other issues.

Conservatives like to talk a big game about opposing undue government interference in people’s lives and the dangers of big government. Whether it’s guns, taxes or even standardized testing in schools, they’ll be the first to fire up the spin machine and say that liberals want to run people’s lives for them. Yet if you suggest that maybe the government shouldn’t discriminate against gay couples or prosecute people for possessing a bag of marijuana, suddenly they’ll do a 180 and explain how the government has to protect us against the gay agenda and reefer madness.

Going forward, the GOP will have to make a choice. They can continue to beat the tired old drums of the culture wars and pretend gay rights are a danger to us all while they continue to lose the support of younger voters, or they can join the 21st century – but I’m not going to hold my breath on that.



Comments

Facebook comments

  • Conservatives fighting against gay’s and gay rights are fighting a losing battle I think that was clear from the start. Conservatives always been on the wrong side of history

    • FD Brian

      If conservatives had their way, you still wouldn’t be able to see Elvis shake his hips on TV today, because it would cause a massive panty soaking amoungst women.

    • Randy Nichols

      Lets see slavery… Democrats, Jim Crow laws… Democrats, KKK.. Democrats, ” we will have the niggers voting democrat for 200 years” quote by LBJ… a Democrat. Policies that apply the soft bigotry or lowered expectations… Democrats, enslaving people to dependence of government….Democrats.. It goes on and on…

      • I said conservatives, not Republicans. And back in the day Conservatives where democrats but it got switches around and conservatives are now Republicans. My point still stands about Conservatives. Also if you have to go that far back in the past to proof your point there is something wrong 😉

      • Randy Nichols

        Not necessarily have democrats been conservative… they have always been for big government, and they have always been racist, they really didn’t change, they just changed their presentation. Republican view did not change, they supported civil rights with the idea that we would give a path to blacks to have the same rights to achieve the American dream. Democrats wanted to create a dependent class to ensure that they would have a permanent voting block. The democratic view has always and still is that blacks are inferior, and can’t compete on level field, and they have created a generation that believes they must rely on government for everything. In lowering standards, they have dumbed down all races to the point that even college graduates do not understand basic economics and civics or history.

      • FD Brian

        “Democrats wanted to create a dependent class to ensure that they would have a permanent voting block”

        that’s a pretty false narrative. The left likes those programs because they think they actually help and assist people, if those programs did help people get out of poverty, they would vote for the dems that helped them anyway. You can say the right wants the poor to stay poor to punish them for not voting republican, but it would be just as false as your statement above.

      • Randy Nichols

        If you believe that have some ocean front property in AZ I will sell you cheap… Cloward and Piven laid out the plan to over whelm social programs to cause a collapse in order to dismantle our constitutional system… that is the goal of progressives… they take advantage of under educated people with good intentions to sell you on it. Obama’s stimulus sent 2 billion dollars to Baltimore… but I guess not of it made its way to Freddie Grays neighborhood.. that is 2 billion with a B, just to Baltimore, that is besides what went to the state of Maryland. Yet we here nothing has been done for Baltimore and it is some how republicans fault, even though the city has been run by democrats for a generation. The false narrative is that democrats are for the poor… when Hillary is out polling republicans with millionaires, they know who really butters their bread.

      • Flat Banana

        Well said Randy.

  • wendy

    Bottom line is when they claim to be for ‘small govt,’, all that means is deregulate business so greed can prevail without consequences.
    But when it comes to personal values, stick the govt. nose to tell us how to live.

    • Randy Nichols

      The democrats are all about telling people, how to live, how to conduct business, how to think, what to eat. If Republicans are so for the rich how come Hillaryous polls higher with millionaires. Who do you think is the big money behind the amnesty for illegals…Thats right big business, while the glut of workers over supplies the labor market keeping wages down for lower skilled and entry level jobs. They get you diverted with issues like same sex marriage, and they hook others with dependency on government, and voila, they can then do anything they want and you go right along.

  • strayaway

    States are delegated with the power to define marriage as they wish.

    • Brian

      If and when the Supreme Court decides otherwise, it won’t really matter. Equality under the law is coming.

      • strayaway

        You are right of course. If the Supreme Court chooses to, for instance, declare corporations to be people, then corporations are people. If the Court similarly declares that men are the same as women as far as marriage is concerned, we are stuck with that too. Meanwhile, a number of states have already declared same sex marriage legal under the power allowed them by the 10th Amendment. Does your definition of equality include the right of same sex siblings and cousins to marry, polygamy, polyandry, or group marriages? If not, why not?

      • Brian

        I don’t see what point you’re trying to make other than a lead-in to you admitting you value your idea of states’ rights over individual freedom and equality, and attempting to make a nonsense (and irrelevant) comparison. The states have no right to use the 10th as a license to oppress minorities. That was already agreed upon by the Supreme Court when they ruled against the states’ right to impose racial segregation. The state governments put up quite a fight back then too.
        Your last question is a strawman.

      • strayaway

        So how is it that you get to decide what is “nonsense and irrelevant” rather than those individuals? Mormons and Muslims might prefer to have their own polygamous marriage options instead of just the ones you arbitrarily allow them. Who made you god?

        The states do have a right to define marriage since that is not a power delegated to the federal government nor denied states. Besides, if we we waited for the federal government to come up with a on size fits all states plan, the states that already have gay marriage would still be waiting. The citizens of California decided not to wait for Utah to adopt gay marriage so they proceeded to pass their own definition of marriage. Why would you have forbidden that?

        I’m obviously not a fan of gay marriage thinking it silly like children putting on fireman outfits and declaring themselves firemen. But, I support the constitutional rights of states to define marriage any way they wish.

        I did ask a strawman question about same sex brothers marrying under a new gay marriage ruling that you chose not to answer wondering if they could marry and if not why not? But I am curious where the line is drawn and no one seems to have an answer.

      • Pipercat

        First problem, the several States have powers, they do not have rights. Second, states have the power to regulate marriages; however, who may marry falls under the jurisdiction of individual liberty and therefore is determined by the US Constitution. Defining marriage is defining a right which the states do not have the power to do.

      • strayaway

        Well then let’s say that states have the ‘power’ rather than the ‘right’ to define marriage since defining marriage is exactly what those states have had to do to pass laws allowing gay marriage. If those states never had the ‘right’ to redefine marriage as you claim, perhaps gay marriages in those states are unconstitutional until if and when the Supreme Court defines those marriages constitutional.

        Maybe you could answer my open questions though. Why should gays get be allowed to marry while Mormons and Muslims and the rest of us are still are forbidden to engage in polygamous marriages? The discrimination seems arbitrary. And if the Supreme Court decides that gay marriage is legal, then will same sex siblings and other same sex relatives be able to marry? If not, why not?

      • Pipercat

        Marriage is not being defined, who can be a spouse is. What several states did was expand the rights of who can be a spouse. That’s the problem here.

        Your open question goes back to marriage, a what, if you will. Marriage is a contract between two people: spouses. The supreme court is only deliberating on the definition of a spouse and if that spouse is protected under the 14 Amendment’s equal protection clause.

        The slippery slope argument is moot because the Supreme Court is only deciding on spouses of the same gender. That is what was argued before them. The rest may come up again, but is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

      • strayaway

        Marriage is partly defined by who qualifies as a spouse but I’m not convinced that is a problem. Marriage is also defined in the dictionary. i had an old about 1950 dictionary that defined ‘marriage’ as being between a man and a woman. Newer dictionaries more broadly define marriage as being between same or different sex couples. That creates an interesting situation. Young people who open a dictionary are assured that marriage includes same sex couple but older people still are walking around with what the word ‘marriage’ meant when they grew up. It’s like we speak two different languages.

        Why is marriage just a contract between two people as you claim? Why is it a contract between two people any more than it is, for instance, a contract between multiple people as recoded in the Bible or allowed by Mormons and Muslims? I realize the Supreme Court is only ruling on the gay marriages but the rights of these other minorities is meanwhile ignored under the equal protection clause. I agree with your last paragraph. This is a slippery slope process.

      • Pipercat

        Marriage is a contract between two people and is recognized legally that way. Polygamy is not legally recognized as a marriage. Simple contract law applies to marriage contracts with caveats in regards to custody and the like.

        When one goes down the slippery slope, one misses the underlying details. For example, polygamy, by it’s very nature, cannot use the basic contract laws applied to marriage. A whole new set of laws would have to be applied and possibly created. Does this mean that it can’t be made legal in the future, no. However, the case before the court does not slope down to polygamy due to simple contract reasons above.

        Dictionary definitions only apply to the word in question and definitions change over time. This is legal decision about individual liberty and the laws surrounding that issue. This will affect the legal definition of a spouse and the granting of future standing.

        Whether other rights are being ignored under equal protection are matter for another time. Slippery slopes create too many false dilemmas and irrelevancies.

      • strayaway

        But gay marriage is a slippery slope away from a constant that has dominated Europe for hundreds of years. Marriage doesn’t even have to have a legal basis. I found this on the ‘US Catholic’ website:

        “Given the shift in marriage’s civil legal definition to include same-sex couples, it is time that Catholic conversations about the issue recognize that we are talking about two different realities when we use the word “marriage”—a legal contract on the civil side, and a sacramental covenant between two baptized people on the other—and adjust our practice accordingly. Doing so would allow Catholics to have a fruitful intramural conversation about our theological understanding of the sacrament of marriage without being entangled in the question of whether families and couples who don’t fit that vision should have access to the legal benefits and duties that go with its civil parallel. It would also acknowledge what should be obvious to everyone: Even if civil and religious marriage were once a single entity, the ties uniting those two dimensions have now almost completely unraveled.”

        My guess is that as the definitions of civil marriages and religious marriages stray from each other, more people will stop investing in supporting civil marriage; sort of like people who send their kids to private schools might be more reluctant to vote for higher millage for public schools.

        As you note, “A whole new set of laws would have to be applied and possibly created” which is presently being done to accommodate gay marriages and the children subject to those marriages. It’s more that the gay lobby is better funded and organized that we have started sloping down toward gay marriages instead of some of these other marriage options.

        My point about dictionary definitions has to do with how people come to understand something. Newer dictionary definitions defining gay marriages as real marriages help tilt the public perception and acceptance of gay marriage.

      • Pipercat

        What the Catholics have to say on this is also irreverent, I’m afraid. Marriage in the United States, to be recognized, has to be performed and documented under common and community law.

        This is an issue regarding individual liberties and matters of law. So called, “traditional marriage” is recognized legally under the auspices of holy matrimony. Regardless of how a marriage is performed, or described, it is ended via the court systems in all cases including death of a spouse. This means, the matters of contract law take over once pronouncement is made.

        Further, saying that, somehow, gender equality is a slippery slope dismisses all notions of civil liberties. If any person, including LGBT, obey the laws, pay their taxes, vote and contribute to society, it is patently unethical to deprive people access to basic liberty. This is not a religious issue, it is not a partisan issue, it is not an ideological issue; it is an ethical issue regarding basic freedoms and the standing that goes with it.

        It would also be unethical of me to argue against my fellow citizens who, like me, conduct themselves in a honorable way like the examples described above. Giving liberty to other citizens does not take away my liberties in any way; moreover, it ends a prohibition that government is enforcing.

      • strayaway

        What Catholics have to say probably isn’t so irrelevant to Catholics and if they, to whatever extent, detach themselves to whatever extent from their support of civic marriage, the institution of civic marriage will suffer. The attitude found in the Catholic publication was ominous “Even if civil and religious marriage were once a single entity, the ties uniting those two dimensions have now almost completely unraveled.” I also suspect the broadening of marriage definitions is also one of the reasons more and more people who mostly aren’t Catholic just live together instead of getting mired in the legal system. Not everyone identifies with a civic institution that spotlights gay guys kissing at the alter.

        I agree that to the extent that the word ‘marriage’ even suggests ‘gay marriage’, this is a matter of increasing the constitutional freedom of gays but ignores similar freedoms to would be polygamists and others. States where the majority of voters care are changing their marriage laws to accommodate gay marriage. Your arguments that this is about liberty and ending prohibitions is also an argument for almost any other restriction on who can marry whom, age restrictions, forms of marriage, etc.. One logical conclusion is that government should just get out of the way of restricting this group or that group and treat everyone as individuals allowing each individual as much liberty as possible. There is already a structure of lawsuits, wills, and other legal contrivances that would allow government to intervene in relationships if necessary.

        I don’t know if, unlike you, I have any reason to believe that gays conduct themselves either more or less honorably than other citizens including Mormons and Muslims. That isn’t much of a legal reason anyway.

      • Pipercat

        Your argument still binds to the notion of the slippery slope without reason other than speculation. There are no logical connections downhill from the issue before the court. Polygamy is not germane to the issue at hand. If some governmental entity wants to recognize polygamy, then fine, let the arguments begin. Religious preferences and dogma is also, not germane to the issue at hand. A church or any sect may not recognize a LGBT marriage; which is their prerogative. However, that lack of recognition is non-binding in a legal setting.

        The issue before the court is a simple definition of who can be a spouse in a legally recognized marriage and the standing that entails. Polygamy, or any other notion, must be argued separately.

        My arguments regarding liberty are germane to the issue at hand and it is the reason I brought them up. They may be germane to the other notions posited, but it still goes back to relevance and logical progression.

        Lastly, the premise of my last paragraph is to point out potential discrimination; which is a legal reason, as a matter of fact. In this context and what is being argued will define a legal status in a legally binding, simple contract.

      • Brian

        Once again, all you offer is strawman arguments irrelevant to the point. The SCOTUS ruled forty years ago that the 10th is not a license for states to oppress or discriminate.

      • strayaway

        Polygamy is not “another question entirely”. The gay crowd just got organized first. Polygamists have just as much right to be free of discrimination as gays, have a history, and the right plumbing to get married and have families. If anything, polygamists have a better claim to marriage. I realize adoption options exist for gays and bless them if they do adopt. Some states don’t let cousins or even second cousins marry. That’s where I would start when expanding categories of who can marry. Consider the preposterousness of not letting cousins marry while allowing same sex couple to marry. Why not just get rid of civic marriages and let individuals form their own relationships without the interference of government? About half of Scandinavian couples have kids without government interference although many of those couple decide to get legally married later.

      • Brian

        I’m not getting into off subject strawmen arguments with you. I’ve made my case and you’ve yet to refute it.

      • strayaway

        Brian, Tell me of when any liberals have ever recognizes the 10th Amendment. Liberals at the federal level would lose their reason to be is they ever acknowledged the 10th Amendment. There is always some obscure court ruling or most recently the government’s power to tax that trumps the 10th Amendment according to liberals.The Supreme Court also ruled that corporations are people. I suppose you go around defending that ruling too. Brian:”I don’t care what the 10th Amendment says. Corporations are people because the Court says so.” States already have made gay marriage legal whatever their reasons. Presumably, it had a lot to do with the sentiments you express about gays, although not necessarily polygamists or cousins, to be “as free as they wish”. In Oregon, doctor assisted suicide is legal, other states have made marijuana illegal. That’s what the 10th Amendment is about Brian; the freedom to move ahead. Are you going to try to say that states shouldn’t act on such issues until the Supreme Court has ruled on them? What about being “as free as we wish” to commit suicide, smoke dope, or go shopping naked at the mall? Why does the “authority of the state” make such things illegal Brian,? Why is it more important for gays to marry than heterosexual cousins or to be able to do all those other things? I’m ok with states that legalize gay marriage but you condition the ‘right’ of gays to play house on centralized government authority. Gays in states like California would still be waiting for the green light if they had to depend on people like you.

      • FD Brian

        the “slippery slope” argument, FAIL.

      • Randy Nichols

        How is it a slippery slope, what is your argument against any two people or plural people to be married, any argument for same sex marriage eliminates any objection to any other type of marriage.

      • Mark Stone

        So braniac, what other kind of marriage? Incest, hell from my understanding vertical family trees are very common in TexASS. So y’all should be supporting that. As for animals getting married, seriously? How would Fido give consent? Isn’t consent part of the marriage. Typical repugnut illogical bull feces. But hey that’s par for your course.

      • Randy Nichols

        I didn’t mention animals, but leave it to your depraved mind to think of it. But seriously you say incest as if it is bad… well homosexuality was viewed just as bad not that long ago. What would you care if they consent? Same with polygamy, if all parties consent what business is it of yours? A lot of couples are in swinger lifestyle, say a couple wants to marry another couple, and they all consent how is that different? So why would you want to deprive all of the benefits of marriage?

      • FD Brian

        you can stop, you lost once you went all slippery slope on us and there is no need to argue. But you’re welcome to check out the article on the good republican in Texas who chastised the Governor for giving credence to Jade Helm 15 nut balls. You might even find my comment there.

      • Randy Nichols

        I know Jade Helm 15 not an invasion, and most informed people know it.. but tell you what, I am gonna sell it to the ignorant and uninformed… just like the democrat party sells the made up war on ” gays, women, race” or whatever fear tactic this week that they target to the ignorant uninformed low information crowd. Democrats every day proclaim some bogie man from the right is going to do this or that.. well time for the right to play the same game.. there is a lot of ignorant low information people in this world and we might as well scare them too.

      • FD Brian

        your replies are becoming more idiotic by the post. Everything you accused the left of, the right actually does. The fact you would sell it to the ignorant and uninformed just goes to show how moronic you are. Just listen to yourself, you want to appease the idiots that think like you? WTF is wrong with you?

      • Randy Nichols

        Well you almost got my point. The point is that yes it is a big scare tactic to proclaim Jade Helm 15 an invasion.. and the right is doing it Sherlock…..I just said that and then you say the right does it too DUH, that is what I was just saying. The rest of the point is, again is that they are aiming it at the ignorant and uninformed… just like the left does with all their scare tactics and made up crisis…. they are aiming that at the ignorant and uninformed…. Got it now?

      • Randy Nichols

        What equality? What right do I have that gays don’t have?

      • Brian

        If you do not understand the issue, don’t join the conversation.

      • Randy Nichols

        Can you not answer the simple question?

      • Brian

        No, now bugger off.

      • Randy Nichols

        Just as I thought you are a mind numbed fool.

      • Robert Johnson

        What right do you lose if it passes?

      • Randy Nichols

        I don’t lose any as long as churches are not forced to sanction it, or as long as I do not have to participate. I don’t care if they want to call what they do marriage, it has no effect on my life as long as I don’t have to participate in their ceremony.

  • Clintoris

    What a slippery slope.This country is headed straight down the crapper.

  • noah vail

    maybe those evangelical “christians” should take a close look at themselves and and maybe they will start acting more christlike and less “christian”…the hatred and vitriol that spews forth from these people makes the rest of us view them as the same as the muslims that they appear to hate and fear so much

    • Randy Nichols

      What vitriol and hate? The only vitriol and hate I see is coming from the left. What are gay rights? Gays are not a distinct race, ethnicity or gender… how does one eve know someone is gay? Say gays become a protected class, what is to stop someone from claiming to be gay to take advantage? How would you know since being gay is not self evident? Does everyone that you come in contact with tell you their sexual behavior… do you ask them to prove it? So you expect Christians to suddenly accept same sex marriage something that even Obama and Clinton was opposed to just a few years ago.

      • So you can say gays shouldn’t be a protected class because everybody could claim they are gay and abuse it. Same could be said about religion 😉

      • Randy Nichols

        People have attempted to abuse religious protections, they have used it to get out of being drafted.. and yes, difficult to prove religious conviction. But you have to be able to show that the tenants of your religion are being compromised. All major religions have written doctrine that can be used to show what they belief system is.
        What rights do gays not have? I have no rights that a gay man does not have. They have a right to free speech same as me, they have a right to bear arms same as me, the have right to vote same as me, they have right to not testify against themselves same as me, they have a right not to submit to illegal searches same as me, the right to privacy, and every other right guaranteed by the constitution that I have they have.

        What I don’t have, or didn’t have until recently was the ability to marry a man, so in that I didn’t have that right. Who is to say there has been times where me and a close friend could have benefited from being married in the past? Sex doesn’t have to be involved, must you have sex with whom you decide to marry? Bob can marry Jims sister Sally, but Jim is unable to marry Sally, does Bob have rights that JIm does not have?

      • FD Brian

        because straight people have never had a marriage of convenience? Come on, you’re argument is dumb. Not being able to marry is a violation of their right in the pursuit of happiness.

      • Randy Nichols

        Hey, I am on a wait and see, if the court rules for it then I will be advocating marriage for all.. .if you are gonna devalue the institution, then lets do it. Mainly just to see the gays try to make an argument against it.

      • samwoody31

        no they have the same rights…. you just didn’t bring Bob’s sister into the conversation…apparently it was intentional to mislead

      • FD Brian

        Christians came around to eating pork and shell fish, so it’s just a matter of time.

      • Thomas Collins Jr June

        No, most Gentile Christians always ate pork and shellfish. “Coming around” to a sinful life is not a true Christian way, we spread the Good News, show Christian Love and spurn Sinful ways. God Bless

      • Jimstainless

        don’t try to engage them with facts Randy they will break out in hives and choke to death

      • Randy Nichols

        LOL.. that is true… you hit them with facts and they go into Liberal Mania… and lose all ability to reason. Makes for good entertainment.

  • Clintoris

    Rubio/Cruz 2016.Our first Hispanic president and vice president.If you don’t like them then you must be racists.

  • BPMM

    Lots of knuckle draggers in the GOP and Tea Party.

  • Jimstainless

    polled a bunch of gay people until we get a number we like, sure its a fact

  • curmudgeon VN Veteran

    Poll was taken in San Fran Sicko and the bath houses of Chicago where Barry used to play.