Regarding votes on state amendments that was mentioned above, here are a couple of charts that show the share of YES votes in the various states.

I don’t know where you got the data for those charts but it doesn’t match the election data I got from CNN (and a couple of other sources).

For example your chart claims in 2006 the % voting in favor of gay marriage bans was 67%, From the CNN Election result data, it was only 62.7%. Even excluding the AZ data (which I can see no valid reason for you to do that) the result would only be about 64.2% And averaging in the 2005 results (Texas and Kansas) still only gets you to 65%.

Additionally, of all the data on votes I could find prior to 2003(2002,2000, 1998), the lowest margin was 67% to 33% (Nevada 2002). All of the others were by margins greater than 67%. So I’m curious how you arrived at your 63% figure.

I stand by my original statement that polling and vote data indicate a trend towards greater support for same-sex marriage.

If anyone wants any links to the data I used, I’ll post them. And for the record Chairm I am asking for the data you used to create those charts.

Not to worry. I’m not offended that Ann does not appreciate my writing. She’s told us all several times that she refuses to read anything I write. That is certainly her right.

Considering that Ann isn’t reading this, perhaps you could ask her the following question:

What would be a good term to describe “those who are opposed or hostile to homosexual social reforms and institutions, etc.” as opposed to those who support such reforms and institutions?

Jayhuck,

I don’t think you are belaboring a point at all – I do understand that you find value and substance in the posts from both Eddy and Timothy.

Yes, I agree with you about Eddy’s contributions to the blog – I find them invaluable and very substantive and intelligent and fair. He always has an attentive audience with me

Jayhuck,

I promise not to get into a discussion about labels again as we both know each other’s position on it, however, based on the above definition you endorse, do you then believe that one can oppose social reforms and institutions and not the person? This is how I read the definition you stated based on the word “or” rather than “and”.

How is this a danger facing the Church?

That’s what that seminar was exploring. One real danger is that the combo of legalizing marriage and anti-discrimination legislation could put the church in the position of facing discrimination lawsuits if they refused to perform gay marriages once legalized.

There is no “danger” of any church being forced to perform marriages (or any other religious rights) contrary to the beliefs of the church. Any lawyer claiming otherwise is likely trying to drum up some business through fear-mongering, or really isn’t a very good lawyer. See Timothy’s post for more on why this wouldn’t happen.

The only “new” legal threat gay marriage would pose is if a church employee married and the church tried to refuse spousal benefits to the spouse. This isn’t really new though, because it essentially an anti-discrimination argument about whether the church is exempt from anti-discrimination laws involving gays.

If you have it Warren, I would very much like to see the transcript of the 1:30-3:00PM seminar as well.

I’ve talked to a number of gay people and suggested that Conservative Christians might be persuaded to consider ‘domestic partnership’ legislation while they’d never consider ‘gay marriage’. Only one could live with that. All of the rest wanted nothing short of ‘legalized gay marriage’. If they were “ONLY asking…the same rights”, domestic partnership would cover it.

No, actually domestic partnership (or even Civil Unions) doesn’t cover it. The problem is you are creating a new type of legal status that isn’t recognized everywhere. For example, a couple who gets a civil union in Vermont then moves to MI, what rights do they have in the new state? None, and they don’t even have the legal ability to challenge, because MI doesn’t recognize anything called a “civil union.”

Jayhuck,

That could be – I just know that I read your posts because I believe they have substance while I don’t read others.

This is pretty much how I understand the term.

Thanks!

I’ve noticed you have used the term “anti-gay” – can you describe what this term means? Is it the new buzz word or does it have any substance? Also what is the distinction between someone who is anti-gay versus someone who isn’t?

No church IS required