There was a new poll today in the Quad City times concerning Iowans' views on civil unions/gay marriage that I found kind of interesting. Here's the gist:
"The Iowa Poll shows that 62 percent of Iowans believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Thirty-two percent support same-sex marriage, while 6 percent were unsure.
More than half of those surveyed say Iowa should allow civil unions for same-sex couples. About 40 percent oppose civil unions and 4 percent were unsure.
The poll shows that Iowans are divided on whether the state constitution should be changed to ban gay marriage — 48 percent support changing the constitution while 47 percent are opposed."
Two points worth considering. First, civil unions could probably be done tomorrow. The numbers are in the House and Senate, and the will of the people has arrived. This point might be moot though in a little while, because of the second point : gay marriage is starting to look like a very real possibility.
The headline of this article is Poll: Iowans against gay marriage, back civil unions. But in my opinion, that's not a great reading of these numbers. Though 62% of Iowans believe that marriage should be "only between a man and a woman," only 48% favor changing the constitution to require this. In the end, it's going to be the 48% number that matters the most.
This reinforces an idea from one of my previous posts that people find it troubling to actively discriminate against other people. Sure, when the pollster calls up and asks what John Doe thinks about marriage, he might say that it should "only be between a man and a woman," and this might have something to do with him being married to a woman. But when it comes to legislating other people's lifestyles, many people (especially libertarians I might add) don't really see it as necessary for their personal happiness.
In a way, I think when some people answer this kind of question, it's almost like a kind of weird, defensive assertion/affirmation of their own sexual preferences. (Yes I'm attracted to women, how dare you?!) The pollster doesn't necessarily ask John Doe if he would rather be married to a man or a woman, but to John Doe, it kind of feels that way. So questions of should marriage be this or that are inherently misleading because people have a preconceived mentality of what they would want in the situation being offered.
Since more people engage in heterosexual lifestyles than homosexual ones, that is the knee-jerk response.
Here's a quick analogy to illustrate what I mean. A small, busybody lobby is trying to pass a law making sure that people open doors for one another. It's called the "Pay It Forward Act of 2008." In order to see what kind of support they have for their Act, the Register does a poll and asks 800 people this question: "Should people always hold the door for one another if they have the opportunity?"
Each and every person hears this question and says "Well, what would I do in this situation?" And they say things like "I'd open the door!" (or, by comparison, "I'd marry a woman/man!."). Because that's exactly what he/she would do in that situation.
Let's say that 92% of people say "yes, people should open doors for each other"(this is Iowa after all). You can imagine what the headline would be: "Iowans in favor of required door opening." But in reality, that preference has very little bearing on what Iowans think the law should be. It's just what they think people should do.
Now, I don't know exactly how the questions of this particular poll were posed, but I feel like something like that must be at play. How else do you explain the sudden drop, to below %50 of people who are in favor of amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. True, people opposed gay marriage in a general sense (becuase of religion or something), just like they're opposed to swearing or premarital sex or not opening doors or being late for class or staying up past 11 o'clock or whatever. But they aren't necessarily opposed to gay marriage in a legal sense, as in willing to impose this view on other people through a change in our constitution.
As noted earlier in this blog: the path to gay marriage in Iowa entails two steps: 1) a decision by the Supreme Court affirming Justice Robert Hanson's decision last year and 2) a successful defense against any attempts by Steve King to amend the constitution. If a constitutional amendment is attempted, it will need to get a majority in the legislature for two years in a row and then a majority vote by the general public.
This is why the 48% figure is so much more important than the 62% figure. As of this poll, there is a 1% difference (48-47) between people who would want to change the constitution and those who would refrain from doing so. This is a statistically insignificant amount, and it very well could decide whether or not we will be the next gay marriage state.
Maybe a better headline would have been this: "Iowans on gay marriage: a statistical dead
heat."
Note to the Register, Quad City Times, DI, and the AP: you are free to use this headline.
Go Progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment