Yoest made contradictory statements about public support for marriage bans -- both were wrong
SUMMARY: On CNN, the Family Research Council's
Charmaine Yoest falsely claimed that "every single time" a marriage
initiative has appeared on the ballot, "it's passed with over 70 percent
of the popular vote." The statement is wrong for two reasons. First, a
same-sex marriage ban failed in Arizona
in the midterm elections. Second, all of those that did pass did not get 70-percent
support -- only two did. Yoest also falsely claimed that those that passed did
so "resoundingly."
On the November 14 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Charmaine Yoest, vice president for communications at the Family Research Council, falsely claimed that "every single time there's been a marriage initiative on the ballot across this country, it's passed with over 70 percent of the popular vote." In fact, according to CNN, in 2006 alone, ballot initiatives banning marriage rights for same-sex couples passed by over 70 percent of the popular vote in only two states -- Tennessee (81 percent in favor to 19 percent opposed) and South Carolina (78 percent in favor to 22 percent opposed) -- of the eight in which they were on the ballot. Moreover, it is not true that "every single" initiative passed -- the Arizona initiative failed altogether (51 percent to 49 percent).
Yoest appeared to acknowledge the failure of the marriage initiative in Arizona immediately before making her claim about the level of support "every single" initiative received, saying that "[s]even out of eight of the ballot initiatives on marriage in this last election passed resoundingly." She did not explain or reconcile her reversal. And even that statement -- that those that passed did so "resoundingly" -- was false.
In the five other states in which ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage passed in 2006, they received between 52 percent and 63 percent support:
- Colorado: 56 percent in favor, 44 percent opposed
- Idaho: 63 in favor, 37 opposed
- South Dakota: 52 in favor, 48 opposed
- Virginia: 57 in favor, 43 opposed
- Wisconsin: 59 in favor, 41 opposed
Blogger Glenn Greenwald noted in Salon.com that 2006 saw a decline in public support for these initiatives: "Prior to the 2006 midterm election, the closest thing to a sure bet in politics was a statewide referendum to ban same-sex marriages. Twenty states had considered such ballot measures, and 20 states had approved them, all by wide margins." He added that earlier "gay marriage bans were passed with an average of 71 percent approval." In 2006, these received an average of about 62 percent approval.
From the November 14 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
YOEST: You know, with all due respect to [Republican strategist] Ed [Rollins], I just really think this is wishful thinking and a projection of what they want to see out there in the electorate, instead of really looking at the hard numbers.
I mean, let's take the marriage issue, for example. Seven out of eight of the ballot initiatives on marriage in this last election passed resoundingly, even in cases where the Democratic candidates went to -- succeeded, like in Virginia.
So, every single time there's been a marriage initiative on the ballot across this country, it's passed with over 70 percent of the popular vote. So, you know, for -- Rudy Giuliani is not just out of step with the GOP, he's out of step with the American people as a whole. So, I see him having a problem both in the GOP but also if, for some miracle --
In my opinion, the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, at least they should stop using that word in any official capacity. The state should sanction civil legal unions between two consenting adults. They needn't "marry" anybody. If someone wants to get married, they can do so in their church or synagogue, mosque, etc.
The term "marriage" is why all the hysteria, it sounds too institutionalized and will be a very high hill for gays to climb for equality. I am all for equality for gays in this area, as equal as straights.
If the state stopped the marriage thing, and changed to civil unions - we'd all be better off. Sanctioning committed relationships between two people is good for society, not injurious as the far right likes to scare with.
A bit too logical for these clowns however. Hard to rally the base wtih logic/reason, IMO.
After all, the actual "legal" marriage is only a "civil contract". Religion should play NO part in it, or IT should play no part in religion, I'm not sure which. You'd think the founders would have frowned on mixing up religion and government anyway.
"Marriage" scares a lot of people, "Civil Union" is far less threatening in the eyesight of most. Leave it up to the States (and the Lawyers).
I must completely agree with you. Very well stated. Get religion out of government completely.
However, I would lay odds that we're more likely to see gay marriage legalized than to have the government no longer be in volved in "the marriage thing." I'm halfway surprised no claimed you were trying to "ban religion," or some such thing.
Once that were done individual churches could decide whether to marry homosexuals or not. Under your very reasonable solution the State would have no say in the matter one way or another
Even if you concede her argument, what does it prove? That the majority of Americans are still homophobic bigots? It doesn't make them RIGHT. The Constitution was set up partly to protect certain rights from the tyranny of the majority. For example, you could probably get a referendum passed in many states to prevent Muslims from holding public office. Fortunately, the Constitution would override such a law.
I agree with Tommy - it's all in that word "marriage". I had that argument with my dad a couple years ago - he was so opposed to "gay marriage" - but kinda supported same sex unions, I had to remind him that currently "Marriage" is a legal status. I say take it out of legal status and go with the civil unions for all - and leave "marriage" as the ceramonial event - if the couple would like to do that..
And, Nerzog - you're so right - it's all about constitutional rights - which should protect everyone....
"every single time" she opens her mouth, stupid comes out.
Her and her hate are coming to an end. She lies on CNN but these lies by her and her ilk are no longer allowed, thanks to forums like MMFA.
they all passed by a good amount with the exception of arizona, where it had more to do with the fact we already have marriage defined here and this would've just banned civil unions. no one likes gay people.
Nobody likes regressive bigots, either.
everyone here thinking you're a moronic bigot?
MMFA points out that what she said was both inaccurate and an exaggeration. How does that count as a loss? As nerzog points out, bigotry like yours dies hard, but it does die eventually. The only reason you reactionariees are having to put such petty and hateful laws on the ballots is that you can see the tide changing. New generations will eventually overturn such laws and homophobes like you will still scream and whine that admitting we are all human regardless of our sexuality will lead to the destruction of our civilization. You poor, pathetic bigot.
"no one likes gay people." You are an idiot.
I like people. Up to the point I dont like them anymore. Whether they are gay or not doesnt enter into the picture. Whether or not they are idiotic bigots however usually does
no one likes gay people.
Tell that to the guys on "Queer Eye," or Liberace, or Elton John, or Rosie O'Donnell, or Harvey Feirstein, etc. etc., all who have made quite a comfortable living appealing to the public. Or you could even tell it to Ken Mehlman, if you prefer. Lots of Republicans liked him until he proved unable to dig them out of the massive unpopularity they've gotten into over the past six years.
Please tell us what other groups of people no one likes so we don't have to keep guessing about who we're supposed to discriminate against.
The only one who loses is hatemongers like you. You never have an intelligent discussion, all you do is spew hate.
MMFA was RIGHT, she was factually incorrect, thus misinformation. IF she had such a good point why did she have to LIE to make it?
My home state of Tennessee was one of the Troglodyte strongholds where the Codified Homophobia Amendment passed resoundingly...I think it was by a 4 to 1 margin. Hee Haw! The sad part is that almost half a million Democrats voted for it! Makes me want to move to Arizona.
The opponents to the marriage ban in Arizona were largely able to utilize a very large heterosexual senior citizen base to point out that *they* could be adversely affected by the wording of the Arizona amendment.
Then, again, it's widely believed that the ghost of Goldwater conservatism showed up in an effort to retain its long-held belief that the government had no business in interpersonal relationships.
... is the Religious Right, the Rightwing's BASE, is slicing and dicing Rudy G, the GOP's top FRONTRUNNER for president in 08.
If Nancy Pelosi were involved here, it would be a catastrophy, a destruction of comity, a breaking apart of the core of the party.
But, NO. This is just the GOP frontrunner being gutted by the GOP's top BASE special interest group. Nothing to see here, move along. The NARRATIVE cannot be applied the same, because this is the MSM.
[P.S. On the "legal" aspect here, the Evangelical spokesperson seems to think that a 70% approval claimed, whether TRUE or not, should trump the individual right to EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW which is stated in our Constitution. One of the greatest aspects of our Constitution is that it protects the individual from the tyranny of the "majority" ... i.e. opposes MOB RULE. For her to tout those numbers in an issue that proposes DISCRIMINATION (against gays) shows she does not agree with the concept of equal treatment, and thus REJECTS our very Constitution. Since she's "from the RIGHT", this tyrannical arrogance is expected.)
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." — Thomas Jefferson
I doubt if they had pollsters back then, but I'd like to know how many Americans favored full citizenship rights for black people in 1850.
Art represents a well established tradition. Like-minded people were burning "witches" 400 years ago. They were gassing Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals 60 years ago. They turned firehoses on black protesters 40 years ago. And, I believe they all had majority opinion on their side at the time.
Is my utter disgust with the way the Republicans in power ignored the old rules that our founding fathers set up that demand that the minority not get ignored.
The Republicans had only disrespect for the Democrats.
Rightwing posters on this site often only have disrespect for Democrats, and fail entirely to discuss the issues in a fair way.
George Bush told us that since the Democrats have now won control of Congress, he will work in a bipartisan manner. Then he turns around and implicitly tells Congress that he will not respect them by doing stuff like re-nominating John Bolten for UN Rep! Since he's the 'top dog', he is telling those in Congress to shove it! That's wrong. The reason the House and Senate are there is part of the checks and balances, to help moderate and dampen any wild things that the President might do!
It is disrespect like that which makes my blood boil.