 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Shifting views on Varnum ruling
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
There’s a poll out this week of 600 likely voters commissioned by Justice Not Politics, the non-profit that’s launched a campaign against efforts to remove Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins. Wiggins, as you may know, was among seven justices who ruled unanimously in Varnum v. Brien, striking down Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriages.
Three were knocked out in 2010. Now. the usual suspects, and the Republican Party of Iowa, are gunning for Wiggins.
The poll seeks to guage support for retention, but as desmoinesdem over at Bleeding Heartland points out, it’s sorta flawed. There are four justices on the ballot, including three newly appointed justices and Wiggins. But the poll does not ask specifically about Wiggins. Odd. And polling retention is notoriously difficult, no matter how you ask.
More interesting to me is the shift in opinion on the Varnum ruling itself (chart above). Since May 2009, overall opposition to the ruling has dropped 15 points while support is up 11 percent. That includes a huge shift among independents, from 67 percent opposed in 2009 to 51 percent supporting the ruling now.
I know the Bob Vander Plaats’ playbook is gin up the base, make sure they vote and benefit from a fact that a considerable number of less interested voters will skip retention entirely. So zealotry, plus apathy, equals victory.
But I think these numbers may suggest that Wiggins hunters might need to do more than just wave Varnum in the air and yell tyranny. This will be a bigger electorate than in 2010, and if they want any support beyond the base, they’ll need a broader argument.
That goes for Wiggins backers as well. What else, besides Varnum, should we like about his record? I know Justice Not Politics folks would argue that retention was not intended to work like that, but there’s no going back now.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
This pleases me. Finally, most people are accepting reality. The Varnum decision was about compliance with the constitution and the Supreme Court was doing what their oath and job description required them to do.
I also note that movement towards the acceptance of reality was the lowest amongst our Republican friends despite having the greatest opportunity for improvement. That, in itself, tells us something.
With such strong support of redefining marriage is evident, I wonder why the governor Gronstal so fears a vote.
There is nothing to vote about. The constitution stands.
Gee Bill i thought we worked under a ‘living constitution’. Now all of a sudden the people cannot vote for amendments?
“There is nothing to vote about”
There is nothing to vote about because you know same-sex marriage in Iowa would be shut down hard by the voters.
The only vote that is possible to address this situation is a vote to amend the state constitution. Per the rules, that vote could not happen until 2016, since it has to pass both houses of congress in 2 consecutive congresses. Long before 2016 this will be ruled on at the federal level by the Supreme Court and any state law or constitution will be irrelevant.
Like I said Why did Gov Gronstal refuse a vote on the floor of the Senate?
Messy bussiness, this self governing populace. Being lectured to by those in power seems preferable.
We will see if the same rules apply with a different power structure.
Could it be that Gronstal wanted to save the state from wasting a lot of time, emotion and money on an issue that will be resolved at the federal level anyway?
There was no “redefining marriage”. Marriage has had, and will continue to have, different definitions for different people and cultures. The Judeo-Christian Bible, for example, describes several different types of marriage, including polygamy and forced marriage.
But, even if we were to just consider the made-up “traditional marriage” shtick some fringe Christians espouse being only as “one man + one woman”, that still doesn’t apply to anyone other than those self-same “Christians”. After all, we are *NOT* a “Christian Nation”, we are a secular society that allows all faiths to practice their own beliefs. As long as “marriage” is a state-recognized contractual bond, no one faith gets to define it for all of us.
“I know the Bob Vander Plaats’ playbook is gin up the base”
I know, it’s about as bad as Todd Dorman pushing a poll that doesn’t give the breakdown of D/I/R. For all you lurkers that’s Dem/Ind/Rep. For all we know this could’ve been a poll taken on the Ped Mall in IC. Thanks for the “unbiased” poll Dorman.
I think that as soon as it sunk in that the State recognizing same sex marrirage did not mean that the State would be forcing religious institutions to do the same, people seem to have lost interest.
It boils down to the difference between marriage as a sacrament and marriage as a civil contract. Religious institutions are free to marry or not marry couples as they see fit, married couples are all granted the same rights and protections by the State, and everybody’s happy. What’s not to like
“Justice Not Politics”
This is an election year. I don’t believe the polls. 600 hundred likely voters probably means 600 Liberals from Iowa City. Typical pure bunk poll.
Mr Ahart,
The poll cited by Dorman is absolutely consistent with every other poll, nationwide, that’s been done on the subject of same sex marriage over the past ten years. If you want to argue that all of the people polled are the same six hundred liberals from Iowa City, you are free to do so
“The poll cited is consitent with every other poll for the last ten years”
Of course well all know that is a bunch of bull crap. If worked for Justice Not Politics I could easily provide ten polls pro same sex and the next month provide ten polls anti same sex by profiling sex, marriage status, race, income, and religion, and carefully structuring the questions to my agenda. Polls create what they want you to hear. The do not “validate” a claim or subject matter.
P.S. Roberta: While you are at it why don’t you back up you claim by showing us a “Valid poll” pro same sex from ten years ago. Good luck.
Gallup Politics May 20, 2011
“For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage”
CBS News Political HotSheet May 14,2012
“Poll: Most Americans support same-sex unions”
Both articles show polling results consistent with the poll cited by Dorman. There has been a steady increase in support for legal recognition of same sex unions over the last ten years
In other words, ten years ago most Americans would have agreed with you. Now they don’t