The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- In Afghanistan Decision, Risks Abound
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
The Gay Marriage Vote
November 19, 2008 10:23 AM
When Californians voted by 52-48 percent for a gay marriage ban Nov. 4, it wasn’t the first time: A similar measure passed by 61-39 percent in 2000, then was rejected by the state’s courts. The new version bypassed the courts by amending the state’s Constitution.
What changed in the two votes? Support for banning gay marriage dropped among most groups, producing the narrower margin. But it increased in one, African-Americans, and that contributed greatly to the measure’s success: Non-blacks voted 50-50 on the measure this year, while blacks backed it by a 40-point margin.
In the item below, Nik Bonovich, an election polling analyst here at the ABC News Polling Unit, dissects some of the changes in California’s vote on gay marriage from 2000 to 2008.
By Nik Bonovich
Perhaps the most notable change in the gay marriage vote was among blacks: While most other groups moved away from a ban on gay marriage, African-Americans moved toward it, voting 70-30 percent in favor this year, compared with 59-41 percent eight years ago.
Strikingly, blacks broadly favored the gay marriage ban despite their almost unanimous support for Barack Obama, who’d opposed the initiative, Proposition 8. Indeed, among non-black Obama voters in California, 74 percent opposed Prop. 8. Blacks were more aligned with John McCain’s voters, who favored it overwhelmingly, 84-16 percent.
The vote among blacks is not surprising: In a national ABC/Post poll in late 2007, blacks opposed gay civil unions by 58-36 percent. (Whites were in favor, 55-41.) In earlier polling we've done specifically on gay marriage, blacks have been even more broadly opposed, 66-31 percent - very similar to their latest vote in California.
Blacks pushed the measure ahead not only by their lopsided support, but also because, with Obama at the top of the ticket, they increased their share of the electorate to 10 percent, up from the usual 6 or 7 percent in the state.
Most other shifts were against the measure. Among whites, support for banning gay marriage dropped from 60 percent in 2000 to 49 percent this year; among Hispanics, from 63 percent to 53 percent. Support for the ban dropped among men from 64 percent in 2000 to 53 percent this year; among women, from 57 percent to 52 percent.
Young adults generally are more supportive of gay rights. In the 2000 vote (held in the primaries, in which young voter turnout was low) voters under age 30 divided evenly on the issue. This year young voters shifted sharply, 61-39 percent against the measure. Seniors, on the other hand, supported the ban by precisely the same margin.
There was little or no change from 2000 among conservatives or Republicans, both of whom very broadly supported the ban, or among independents, who fairly narrowly opposed it. But opposition rose sharply among Democrats, liberals and moderates alike, up 10, 11 and 15 points, respectively.
Supporters of the ban reportedly suggested that schools would incorporate same-sex marriage into lesson plans. Whether that had an effect is unclear. But voters with children under 18 at home supported the proposition by 64-36 percent, while those without minor children opposed it, 56-44 percent. Similarly, 62 percent of unmarried voters opposed the proposition, while 60 percent of married voters supported it.
In one of the sharpest divisions, 81 percent of evangelical white Protestants in California supported the ban, while among voters with no religious affiliation, 90 percent opposed it. The two groups were about the same size, 17 and 16 percent of voters, respectively.
Voters in Florida and Arizona also approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. In Arizona, Proposition 102 passed by 56-44 percent; in Florida, Amendment 2 passed by 62-38 percent. African-Americans in Florida voted similarly to blacks in California, supporting the ban by 71-29 percent. (There was an insufficient sample of blacks in Arizona to estimate their vote.) But, unlike California, majorities of whites in Florida and Arizona also supported banning gay marriage, as did most Hispanics.
Click here for a table comparing the 2000 and 2008 California votes by group.
November 19, 2008 in Social Issues | Permalink | User Comments (27)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Why dont we take another approach to this Prop 8? Why dont we just try and out law marriage all together? Then no one can say that they have the right to be married, I am sure the "biggots" that have been married for 50 years wont like that and I think that would get them to see the Gay and Lesbians side of things. Personally why cant they get married? Its there right as people, people who love one another and that is all that matters! Religion is not involved in this decision and it should not be! We all have different beliefs and church and state were seperated a long time ago, get over it they are allowed to have the same rights as non gays THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO LOVE ONE ANOTHER! What does it matter? Not to mention it is no ones business but there own. Leave them alone and let them show or represent there love just like the rest of us.
Posted by: Shelli | Nov 25, 2008 10:57:03 PM
Bob and Betty? or Bob and Bob? WHO CARES???????????? Since a large percentage of the population mentioned in this article are single parents and usually not married, I don't see why they should really care one way or another.............OK, that was my rant for the evening. But hey, I voted for Obama. But he's SMART.....
Posted by: Bush IQ is that of a squirrel | Nov 26, 2008 6:25:07 AM
As a devout Christian who attends church every week, I voted the only clear way I felt Jesus would have: I voted No on Prop 8. Though many people choose a religious ceremony, which is fine, it's not required. We don't go to a church to get a marriage license. We go to a civic office. The only real agenda I see here are certain religious people, many well-intentioned, trying to force their religious beliefs on the whole. I truly pray that Prop 8 is overturned. It's only a matter of time until same-sex marriage is the norm, so let's get on with it and move on, folks. I respect other people's religion. But I say as with abortion, if you don't want to marry a person of the same sex, don't. But don't deny others that right.
Posted by: Lee | Nov 26, 2008 8:55:31 PM
I'm so happy to read "bush IQ"'s comment. I was beginning to think there were no open minded religious people out there!
I think people are taking one interpretation of the bible and going too far. these people who voted FOR prop 8 commit sins. what makes their sins forgivable but not the "sin" of homosexuality?
It is because of these people that i do not beleive in "organized" religion. Its more of a follow the leader kind of thing.
its 2008 people. wake up, and realize no ones perfect and if you truly knew as much as you thought you did, you'd know jesus doesnt judge. so why do you?
Suport Love- because love is about love. not gender.
Posted by: ally | Nov 30, 2008 3:32:48 AM
Gay Marriage = Fish on Bicycles
Contrary to the positions of the partisans, marriage has nothing to do with "Equal rights." The real (and legal) reason for marriage, over history, was and is to endow children with the father's property. Whether a child is illegitimate or not, he can always inherit from his mother.
That's ALL marriage was about - joining the property of two families for the benefit of progeny. Which explains "arranged marriages". Wise parents chose the best candidates to procreate grandchildren to endow with their valuable property. Childless marriages were tragic because it made the marriage a nullity.
When two same sex individuals can merge their genes into progeny, we should certainly encourage their marriage for the benefit of their progeny.
But the underlying reason for gay marriage is greed. They want to access the "benefits" granted to married couples under socialism. Without those financial incentives, gay marriage would not be attractive.
Frankly, any gay couple can set up a will to endow the survivor of the union. It doesn't require a marriage, a compact that is a nullity for gays under the common law. See curtesy and dower, in an old legal dictionary, if you're curious for more details.
And, no, a lifelong contract of marriage is not for "love". Two people "in love" don't need a binding legal contract to keep them together for life. The lifelong bonds of matrimony were to keep two people together, who would rather not be, and so preserve the merged family property for the next generation.
Posted by: Jet Graphics | Dec 1, 2008 4:48:47 AM
My Indian, father, (Cherokee)taught me along time ago that a Marriage License is only a PIECE of PAPER that gives MEN the Right to rape, beat and torture women and children. So if a person wants to get married be they Gay, Transvestite or straight let them. WE ALL HAVE to ANSWER to GOD on JUDGEMENT DAY for OUR OWN CHOICES not anyone else.Like the Good LORD said when he lived and walked on this EARTH "LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN THROUGH THE 1ST. STONE".I may not have a BIG FANCY COLLEGE DEGREE hanging on the wall, but with the little bit of college I did get while raising 5 children and WORKING (and NOT living off the GOV.)I think I did real well. ALL of my CHILDREN LOVE ME and look after me. Now how many Rich People can that about ALL THERE CHILDREN.Right now I do not have even 5.00 to send to each of my grandchildren because My Disability Check is a little over 600.00 RENT,450.00 by itself not including Electric, and food. But I know that My chidren will explain why Grandma can not give anything.So as to all the petty squabbles that this Country is having right now what good can come of it.
Posted by: Yvonne Ray | Dec 5, 2008 3:24:41 PM
Am writing this almost a year after that awful vote, just a couple days after an eerily similar awful vote in Maine, which repealed existing marriage rights, 52.8% - 47.2%
This Maine vote was billed as a "People's Veto." It just occurred to me that it takes 60% of the Senate to get any single bill passed. Why then should we allow a simple majority of voters to take away rights from a vilified minority by a vote of 50%+1?
I don't think it's Constitutional to put anyone's basic civil rights up for a popular vote any way (see 14th amendment), but honestly, if we're going to do this, shouldn't the public have to overturn existing rights by at least the same margin that it takes for the United States Senate to approve a new post office branch?
Posted by: David Saia | Nov 8, 2009 1:54:13 AM
Post a comment
