For the first time since Public Policy Polling began polling about gay marriage, it has found that a plurality of Pennsylvania voters approve of its legalization.
In PPP’s first poll of the general election, 48% of respondents claimed they approved of same-sex marriage, while 44% claimed that they did not. 9% were not sure.
Just over two years ago in November 2011, PPP found that only 36% of PA voters approved of same-sex marriage, while 52% opposed it. This represents a 20 point increase in approval, and therefore likely confirms a massive attitudinal shift in the state.
Despite disapproval remaining high at 44%, most participants admitted that the decision has lacked any direct impact on their own lives. Only 23% claimed that the decision had negatively impacted them, with 77% stating that the decision had either a positive impact on their own lives or no impact at all.
Approval for gay marriage would be even higher were it not for the 54% of PA seniors who still oppose legalization. In this demographic, only 36 percent of respondents approved. However, respondents under 45 are overwhelmingly for gay marriage, with 58% approving and only 33% opposing, once again representing a huge generational gap in attitude.
This surge of approval is one of the only things Republican nominee and current Gov. Tom Corbett has going for him. 56% of participants approved of his decision last week not to appeal the U.S. district court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in PA. 33% disagreed with his decision, and 11% were unsure. Amongst many other unfavorable results, this one stands out as a win for Gov. Corbett.
Despite 56% of respondents agreeing with Gov. Corbett’s decision not to appeal, only 45% approved of the court’s decision in the first place, while 11% remained unsure. Perhaps the respondents had varying motives for approving of his decision, with some seeing it as a smart political move while for others it was in line with their ideals.
The survey was conducted by PPP, typically regarded as a left-leaning polling agency, between May 30 and June 1. 835 registered voters participated. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.4%. 80% of interviews for the poll were conducted over the phone with 20% interviewed over the internet to reach respondents who don’t have landline telephones.
Loading ...
12 Responses
@Isaac, thank you for being consistent in your morality, not misinterpreting the science of inbreeding, and answering the question without getting your nose out of joint and trying to change the subject.
Uh-oh-
The lifelong pain/suffering of potential children are a real issue. The genetic causes are well understood science.
The pain/suffering of bigots who get a chill up their spine when gay couples get married is NOT a real issue. There is not a single “right” of theirs that is being infringed by gay couples getting married.
The religious right doesn’t seem to be all up in arms about divorced people getting re-married. (by their logic) Why should a second marriage have the same weight as a first marriage? Why not make all marriages by the divorced be civil unions? Why not call them re-unions and make them fight for all the individual rights like they want gay couples to do?
The issues is resolved by “harm”. There is no harm in gay people getting married. There is harm in siblings getting married if they conceive a child. It’s pretty cut and dry.
The old objection to gays was that they were perverts, degenerates, child molesters, mentally ill, etc. So, “Uh-oh” do YOU believe gays are objectionable?
If not, why is it any of your business to prevent them from getting married?
Most states recognize marriages between cousins from other states where it’s legal. Six states permit cousins to marry but require proof of sterility in at least one of the partners. Only half of the states ban cousin marriage. If two competent, consenting adults want to get hitched and are okay with not having children, who am I to get in the way of their happiness when there aren’t any compelling, objective reasons to the do so?
Thanks for clearing that up.
So just to be clear, society can in an unbigoted way claim that there are effects on others which could move them to deny marriage rights to some couples. Interesting.
But who’s the arbiter of bigotry? Ok, if we think you’re a bigot for exaggerating the dangers of incest just to push a hateful policy?
Uh-oh-
The prohibition on incest is to prevent the deformities and physical defects in any children produced. The problem is due to siblings sharing enough identical recessive genetic error that an child would likely have two copies of defect genes.
I’m sure the ancients deemed the results as evidence of an “unholy” union.
So, if two hetero adult siblings (cousins, etc) are incapable of conceiving/producing children, then there really isn’t a valid objection to them getting married or having sex.
It’s a fair question. If love is love, isn’t it hypocritical to deny marriage to all loving couples?
Isn’t it bigoted to endorse a policy that allows same sex siblings to marry, but not opposite sexed ones?
Animals. Your arguments are trash. Of course you go right to incest. Lol.
@KingofTrolls raises an interesting thought exercise–how long will we discriminate against the love between a brother and a sister when we publicly endorse the love between two brothers (or sisters)?
Isn’t this bigotry to be stamped out as well? What’s the diff?
Immorality is becoming more rampant across the commonwealth, so this disgraceful poll doesn’t surprise me
Finally, brothers and sisters everywhere can tie the knot. No longer will we judge the love between two brothers. No longer will we keep sisters from marrying on the fig leaf premise that they will have deformed children.
As more gay people get married and the sky doesn’t rain down cat, dogs, locusts, killer bees, or fiery death.. voters will realize that gay marriage is just like any other marriage.
Look Duane Milne is gaining popularity . Milne’s gains probably come from outside his District.