More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Household (Single Moms) voters
Last answered 6 hours ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Household (Single Moms) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 12, 2011. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Household data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
- District of Columbia
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- West Virginia
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
7 years ago by news.com.au
7 years ago by allout.org
8 years ago by twentytwowords.com
8 years ago by bbc.co.uk
8 years ago by upworthy.com
8 years ago by youtube.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
There should be 3 kinds of marriage: 1) a civil ceremony that would give couples all legal rights of married couples, whether homo- or heterosexual, 2) a religious ceremony that would NOT give LEGAL rights, and clergy should be able to perform this at their own discretion without any connection to the state. (This is one place where division of church from state has been grossly ignored!). No. 3 would be the same as marriage is at present.
In the case of No. 1, sexual orientation should have no bearing. In cases 2 and 3, the churches would decide whether or not to marry homosexual couples. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Palm Bay, FL
I think the states should decide, but the definition of marriage should not be changed. 8 years ago from a Republican in Ceres, CA
The institution of marriage should be abolished in its entirety. All citizens should be entitled to the same rights and protections, regardless of sexual orientation. 8 years ago from a Green in Milwaukee, WI
Marriage can be between any two people but unless they have the ability to procreate the species they get no tax breaks, churches can decide who they want to allow to be married in their facilities. 8 years ago from a Republican in Winter Haven, FL
I do not believe in gay marriage, but I do not feel I have the right to make this decision for others. They will have to answer to God. 8 years ago from a Republican in Dover, DE
I think that all marriages should be called marriages, but the churches could have sacremental marriages. 8 years ago from a Republican in Glenn Dale, MD
Call it a union not a marriage. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Brooklyn, NY
Government should not be involved with this. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in New Orleans, LA
Yes, but not allowed to adopt. Children need a mother and a father. Look at the prison's and you'll see 90% of them were raised by single parents.... usually the mothers. 8 years ago from a Republican in Marietta, GA
I don't believe in marriage. 8 years ago from a Republican in Washington, DC
Yes, unless the U.S. tax code is changed to allow domestic partnerships and civil unions the same financial benefits marriages have. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Springfield Gardens, NY
If gay marriage is allowed, so should polygamy and other non-traditional marriages. If not, no !. 8 years ago from a Green in Marengo, IL
I have more important things in life to worry about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. 8 years ago from a Republican in Addison, IL
Allow civil unions for same-sex couples but don't call it marriage, but have equal benefits to what married couples have. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Lewisville, TX
No, but at present, it is best left to the states to decide, and if not the states, then perhaps it might be best for local municipalities. Nevertheless, regardless of what is decided, the first amendment of the Constitution must be upheld, because to many who believe in a God who created this universe and is actively involved in the affairs of humanity, homosexuality is and always will be a moral issue.
If this universe and all that be therein are the product of creation, then this Creator is also a moral and spiritual law giver as well, to whom all must answer to. He has already defined for us what marriage is and has already declared what forms of intimate behavior are acceptable in His eyes and what forms are not. This is the position of many people of faith including many Christians (especially Catholics and evangelicals), adherents to Orthodox forms of Judaism, and followers of the more fundamental sects of Islam.
Gays are entitled to their choice of living and have the right to express their opinions, and those who would disagree with them are also entitled to their way of life and have as much right to express their views.
But the first amendment rights of those who have reason to believe that homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of their Creator are not being respected. There are those within the gay community who seek to silence their detractors and force Christian owned businesses to take part in endorsing homosexuality (including gay marriage) against the dictates of their conscience, and already, there are judges in our courts who have no regard for the highest civic law of the land that they have sworn to protect, which has given us the liberties that we enjoy but have taken for granted. This should be a concern to all who value the freedom of speech and religion. To safeguard these liberties, we must not only hold our legislators and President accountable, but also our courts as well.
We are badly in need of a "Freedom of Conscience" act which would prohibit any legislator from passing a law or ordinance, and prohibit any judge in our courts from declaring an order that might force an individual, religious institution, or business to go against the dictates of their faith or conscience.
What I sincerely hope, for the sake of our liberties, that the "Duck Dynasty" controversy might ignite, is a discussion concerning the freedom of both speech and religion. It also should give every citizen cause to take time out of their busy schedule to read the Constitution and know what rights it guarantees them and how our government is truly supposed to operate. We also need in office and in our courts those who will be dedicated to upholding our Constitution and protecting those very liberties given to us in the Bill of Rights.
There has been much support for Phil Robertsons' right to state his beliefs throughout the political and ideological spectrum.
Why can't there be every bit as much support for the Christian Bakers' right to not bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage because he feels that it would be an act of endorsing something that he does not agree with or for others whose free speech and religious liberties may have been violated? When first amendment rights are violated in the name of equality and tolerance, that is when tolerance becomes intolerance and equality becomes a violation of civil rights. Unlike what some courts may declare, gay rights do not trump religious rights, but religious rights trump so-called gay rights. 8 years ago from a Republican in Cutten, CA
Everyone gets a civil union, marriage can be done as a religious ceremony and each religion can decide who it will grant the rite to. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Wayne, NJ
All marriage should be banned. Couples do not need special rights over singles. 8 years ago from a Green in Columbia City, IN
Take the government out of marriage and provide tax benefits for parents/guardians/care-givers of children instead. Review tax laws, and provide subsidies for parents/guardians/caregivers of children. The social debt is to those raising the young, not... 8 years ago from a Democrat in Winthrop, MA
Yes, as long as it is beneficial on taxes for straight couples, it should be or all couples. Otherwise, the government should stay out. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in High Point, NC
I am against the Government issuing a license for something I have a natural right to do. 8 years ago from a Republican in Colchester, CT
Government should not have the power to prohibit or allow certain marriages over others. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Erlanger, KY
Homosexuality is just plain abnormal! It should not be encouraged by making a public declaration of such sickening behavior!. 8 years ago from a Republican in Tucson, AZ