Cameron falsely suggested that polls show most Americans support amending U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Carl Cameron falsely suggested that public opinion polls show that most Americans support amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. While some recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be illegal, most polls that directly addressed a federal constitutional amendment show that a plurality or even a majority of Americans oppose it.
On the July 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron falsely suggested that public opinion polls show that most Americans support amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. After Cameron played a clip of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's (CA) statement from the floor of the House of Representatives on July 18, in which she said that bringing the Marriage Protection Amendment up for a vote in the House "is a partisan exercise by Republicans to divide the American people," Cameron stated: "But Republicans cite that very division in the polls which consistently show that by a 3-2 margin or better, voters think gay marriage should not be legal." Cameron then cited support for state-level initiatives banning same-sex marriage. But while some recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be illegal, most polls that directly addressed the issue Cameron was reporting on -- a federal constitutional amendment -- show that a plurality or even a majority of Americans oppose it.
For example, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted June 13-14 found that a plurality of respondents believe that states should decide "whether gays and lesbians can legally marry":
|
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, June 13-14 |
|
|
"Do you think the issue of whether gays and lesbians can legally marry should be decided at the state or federal level?" |
|
|
State |
48% |
|
Federal |
38% |
|
Unsure |
13% |
Similarly, an ABC News poll conducted May 31-June 4 found that, given the option of allowing "each state [to] make its own laws on homosexual marriage," most Americans oppose "amending the U.S. Constitution to make it against the law for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S.":
|
ABC News Poll, May 31-June 4 |
|
|
"Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it against the law for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S., or should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage?" |
|
|
Amend Constitution |
42% |
|
State Laws |
51% |
|
Unsure |
7% |
A May 8-11 Gallup poll found that 50 percent favored a federal constitutional amendment, 47 percent opposed it, and 3 percent were unsure, but even that poll showed support for a constitutional amendment declining in recent months, down from 57 percent in a poll conducted March 18-20.
Furthermore, unlike the ABC News and Fox News polls, Gallup did not note that a federal constitutional amendment would prevent individual states from adopting their own policies on gay marriage.
From the July 18 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
CAMERON: For the second time in a month, lawmakers failed to approve a ban on gay marriage with a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is only between a man and woman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE [video clip]: The joint resolution is not passed.
CAMERON: It easily garnered a simple majority, 236 to 187, but not the two-thirds needed to amend the Constitution. Because a similar proposed ban failed in the Senate recently and GOP voters knew they lacked enough votes in the House, Democrats accused the Republicans of blatantly trying to energize conservatives for the fall election with an issue that Democrats say is dead.
PELOSI [video clip]: The constitutional amendment that we are debating today has been brought to this floor with full knowledge that it has no prospects for success. [...] This is a partisan exercise by Republicans to divide the American people.
CAMERON: But Republicans cite that very division in the polls, which consistently show that by a 3 to 2 margin or better, voters think gay marriage should not be legal. What's more, recent actions in the states suggest, not only is gay marriage a hot-button issue, it's unpopular. Twenty states in recent years have passed gay-marriage bans. And when it appeared on their ballots, the bans were approved with strong majorities, ranging between 59 to 86 percent of the vote. This year, eight states have put gay-marriage bans on their November election ballots. Republicans call it a question of values.
It's only Faux News--you didn't expect them to get this straight (no pun intended) , didn you? It's not Facts, it's FOX
It's al bushira, for Christ sake. They lie. They have to. The truth's not doing them any favors.
It's who they are. It's what they do.
"They lie... It's what they do"
What is the truth then?? Perhaps EVERY state voting AGAINST gay marriage is the truth. Perhaps the majority DON'T want gay marriage legalized. Give everyone "the truth" about why it is ALWAYS defeated at election time, then all of a sudden "the majority" don't feel that way. As was said in a movie: "YOU can't handle the truth"!
and if O'Reilly's average viewer is really 71 years old it's a shrinking base. Most Americans would rather not have to think too much about gay people getting married. Kerry did one thing right in the '04 campaign when he said that he was for civil unions just like Dick Cheney is. He made a major boner when he brought Mary Cheney into the debate.
Actually, Mary Cheney brought herself into the debate. She was already out, and since she was working on the campaign staff (and well paid at that) of this crew, she was fair game. She might not like it, but too bad. Just 'cause she has her ass in gravy with all her daddy'd millions, she doesn't get a pass to work against the rights of those of us less well off. She shouldn't be hanging around the kitchen if she can't take the heat.
I don't think there was anything inherently wrong with mentioning Cheneys daughter, it was relevant. I just think the problem was underestimating the level of irrational fear in the average American.
I heard plenty of callers on Con radio after that, saying how horrible it was for Mary to be mentioned. Nothing negative was said about her, only a truth that was comfortably under wraps with the GOP.
Heard the topic tossed around at the time on talk radio, and the most telling words i heard repeatedly were references to hypothetical situations of "accusing" someone of being gay.
Speculating that somebody might be gay, or mentioning they are obviously gay, is an "accusation" in the minds of a lot of Americans, even in the 21st Century.
The Constitution gets it ALL WRONG.
Rather than "amending" it to deny equal protection to gay citizens, why not just REPEAL the 14th Amendment, and be done with it?
THEN, we Americans could treat EVERYBODY differently, based on the whims of the culture of localities. Indeed, it could be a RETURN to SLAVERY, if we wanted. And of course, gays could be singled out to be denied whatever the hell we want to deny them.
For example, down in Louisiana, those damn Cajuns are CRAZY. The state should be able to just deny them driver's liscences, voting rights, or access to libraries. As it STANDS, they have to be treated "equally" ... and they're batpoop NUTS! What's up with an equality that demands we treat people who are nuts the same as REAL Americans?
Only that damned 14th Amendment stands in the GOP's way to a "better" nation.
I'm gonna hitch my caboose to your engine and say, "The 14th amendment has got to go!"
I live in a blue state and all that stands between abridging the rights of the Republicans in my neighborhood is the 14th amendment. Without it in the way, my fellow Dems and I could keep them from marriage. Whereas studies don't show that Republicans don't make decent parents and partners, my internal biases do...and hey, there's anecdotal data too! Ronald Reagan was an adulterer and fornicator. Republicans admire Ronnie. That tells me all I need to know about Republican values. It's not that I want to keep Republicans from the miseries of marriage. They deserve to suffer as much as the average Dems, but I'm thinking of the children. Children deserve to be raised in a safe place, a place free of Republican vices and voices.
Decency demands that children be kept far from Rush, the drug addict and serial adulterer. Every child deserves a fair chance at the pursuit of happiness. With a radio tuned to Rush, that profligate 'publican, that symbol of gluttony and lust, what chance can a child have?
Think about the children.
The children.
And appeal the 14th Amendment!
Just the due process and equal protection clauses. Then the majority can enshrine its bigotries and superstitions into the law at will! What a glorious day that will be, brethren and cistern!
Brother Rusty!
And God bless America, home of the restricted rights and land of the afraid!
Now, if you fine gents will excuse me, with more righteous war a comin', I'm going to go beat my plowshare into a sword.
Let's ditch that pesky first and fifth amendment too. I'm darn sick and tired of people hiding behind that there freedom of speech and freedom of the press. And what really burns me up is when they try to assemble and you get a gaggle of them exercising free speech. And don't get me started on how some people insist that they're entitled to due process under the law. If you didn't break the law, then why can't you testify against yourself in court. Also, if the government can't convict you the first time, they ought to have another chance at it, don't you think? They should at least be able to keep trying until they convict you. That's just my opinion, though.
Yes...repeal the 14th and make all people who aren't in lockstep with the current regime wear a letter or symbol to make it clear who is "wid us or 'ginst us"...a big yellow L for liberals...pink triangle for gays...purple peace sign for suspected war protesters...blood red A for Pro-Choice folks...just think of the possibilities! The Scarlet Letter(s) Texas Hold-Um edition...2008 cannot come soon enough.
If the basis of the right wing's religious opposition to gay marriage is that gay sex is sinful then they SHOULD favor gay marriage. Marriage will keep those sinful gays from having sex! Let gays suffer the same as we married heterosexuals. ;>)
the whole argumen is based on the bible and biblical values, and is a major intrusion of church values into state policies. Why are people (and the GOP for that matter) more concerned with disrespecting gays and misrepresenting scientific information on that group than with seperating church and state?
...as long as they're also deprived of responsibilities. If queer people can't acquire the hundreds of rights acquired through marriage, then they shouldn't pay a full share of taxes. One would just register as queer and then one's tax burden would drop 50%. Or 60%. Or 80%. With the money saved, one could then hire a lawyer, as Mary Cheney did, to set up hospital visitation rights and so on. Of course, the tax burden for privileged straight citizens would have to increase. And once sneaky straight singles started registering as gay, the tax burden for married straights would increase even further, but with rights come responsibilities.
Personally, as a conservative i'm against gay marriage. Not because its supposedly sinful, or because marriage is meant to be some sacred institution (look at the divorce rate, hardly sacred). I'm opposed to gay marriage because I believe that it'll promote the idea to future generations that a same sex couple benefits the natural order of things the same as a straight couple.
The fact is, homosexuality doesn't make the world go round. Whether you believe in God or not, you only need to look at the human body to come to realisation that man was made for woman and vice versa. Only man and woman can create children, and breed. Same sex couples cant. Gay marriage will promote the idea that homosexuality is the natural order of things, when it isnt.
Before anyone attempts to call me homophobic, please note that i'm pro-gay adoption, pro-civil unions. But I just can't get behind the idea of gay marriage. I don't believe the world in general understands homosexuality enough yet to attempt to say its a natural sense of being.
However, I'm not crazy about the government banning gay marriage. If the majority of new yorkers are for gay marriage then thats fine. If the majority of texans aren't then thats fine too. Lets just leave it up to the states.
I wish the democrats would stop using all these references to the civil rights movement though. I don't see homosexuals being told to sit at the back of the bus, or barred from dry cleaners.
I don't believe the world in general understands homosexuality enough yet to attempt to say its a natural sense of being.
But I note that you don't have any difficulty proclaiming that it is not a natural state of being. If there are, and have always been, homosexuals, that would indicate that homosexuality is natural and the burden of proof should logically be on the side that claims it isn't.
I wish the democrats would stop using all these references to the civil rights movement though. I don't see homosexuals being told to sit at the back of the bus, or barred from dry cleaners.
The right to marry is considerably more of a civil right than the right to go to a dry cleaners. Are you saying that being prohibited from riding in the front of the bus, or from patronizing a dry cleaners, is worse than being prohibited from marrying?
I have always thought marriage is a sacred covenant that the government should stay out of. Having said that, straight couples can go to any courthouse and be given the equivalent of a civil union-thereby recieving rights not afforded to gays. The right to survivor benefits, ie SS, veterens, etc...; unquestioned hospital visitation rights; all the rights government bestows on the spouse. All I ask for is fairness. Not acceptance, just fairness. Until that day comes, straights will continue to be afforded special rights.
Once again, Media Matters misrepresents the argument and does a diservice to all liberals.
Your headline and argument claim that "Cameron falsely suggested that public opinion polls show that most Americans support amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage." Then, I read I read the column and, per the MM column, Cameron talks about polls showing Americans against same sex marriage but he never mentions any poll that referances Americans' view regarding amending the Constitution for same sex marriage.
Why do you so blatantly misrepresent the facts in your argument? I do not understand it. You weaken Media Matters and all progressive web sights when you do the same missrepresentation as Limbaugh, O'reilly, and other wing nuts. I cannot trust all your claims, but must investigate them myself, and I often will disregard your argumnents because I cannot trust you and I do not have the time to investigate it myself.
Please, quit it, there is enough to report on without falsifying the facts.
P.M.E.
for the federal government (aka big brother) to get involved in this matter is intrusive and SHOULD BE unconstitutional.whether or not people of the same sex marry shoul dbe a matter of personal preference, or , at the very most, a state issue. mass. has allowed it and for the feds to pass an amendment outlawing it would be an unwaraanted intrusion int ostate affairs. contrary to the NEW teachings, this was exactly why the civil war started. uncle sam STAY THE HELL OUT OF STATE BUSINESS!!!!!!
But I note that you don't have any difficulty proclaiming that it is not a natural state of being. If there are, and have always been, homosexuals, that would indicate that homosexuality is natural and the burden of proof should logically be on the side that claims it isn't.
I think I got my point across wrong before. I meant that those who are in favour of gay marriage generally like to submit homosexuality as a natural state of mind. What i'm saying is, that whilst homosexuality does exist, there's still many studies disputing whether its an misfunction of the brain, or something thats perhaps caused by a certain childhood. Some people don't even become homosexuals till later stages in their lives, and in some rare, but unconfirmed cases, some people have even had their sexual orientation change from homosexual, to heterosexual.
The right to marry is considerably more of a civil right than the right to go to a dry cleaners. Are you saying that being prohibited from riding in the front of the bus, or from patronizing a dry cleaners, is worse than being prohibited from marrying?
Absolutely. Not being allowed to marry doesn't in any way hold you down, or hold you back from doing great things or doing general day to day things. There's also civil unions, which generally give homosexuals the same privileges as a married couple in some states. We're not talking about holding back people because of their skin color, we're talking about basing a certain right on somebodys sexual orientation. We need to figure out what exactly is the cause of that sexual orientation. Whether it be natural or developed.
Hope i haven't offended any homosexuals by that post. Im not denouncing you in any way, shape or form.
When it comes to denying civil rights - and marriage is a civil right, that carries with it a bundle of rights that are currently denied to homosexuals - to a minority group, it is not the responsbility of the minority to prove why they deserve the right; it is the responsibility of the majority that would deny them the right to prove why it is necessary that they be denied that right. Homosexuals, as full-fledged, first-class citizens, deserve the right to marry. They are not required to show that their sexual orientation is not the result of some kind of brain damage or childhood trauma, or to somehow prove that being gay is "natural" (which probably isn't possible to prove).