More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Right voters
Last answered 38 minutes ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Right 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.
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
Civil Unions for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Separation of Church and State is well documented. The State should not be allowed to name one of its numerous licenses after a Christian sacrament. The... 8 years ago from a Republican in Ambler, PA
They may get married but only receive "marriage" benefits if they have children. 8 years ago from a Republican in Littlefield, TX
I couldn't care who marries whom, or what. All I ask is that if a gay couple get married, that they call it gay married to substantiate the difference. That way, if I say I am married, the person asking knows I am married to a woman. If I said I... 8 years ago from a Republican in Waterbury, CT
I think the states should decide, but the definition of marriage should not be changed. 8 years ago from a Republican in Ceres, CA
We need to decide what marriage in the eyes of the state means before we can state. and we need to re evaluate the differences between civil unions and marriage, and if marriage is incompatible with same sex relationships, focus more on civil union reform... 8 years ago from a Republican in Phoenix, AZ
Call it a partnershjp, and give them rights - but DON'T call it marriage!. 8 years ago from a Republican in West Bend, WI
Thats a state issue and should be voted on by the people in that state. 8 years ago from a Republican in Providence Forge, VA
It's not the role of government to define the term "marriage" for the people and their religions. There is no valid reason for the state to be involved in, or to regulate, adult consensual relationships that don't involve procreation.... 8 years ago from a Republican in Fort Worth, TX
Take the word "marriage" away from the government. EVERYONE should have civil unions. That would allow for all the legal rights, obligations and privileges for "partners". Then if people wanted to have a spiritual union, they could... 8 years ago from a Republican in Goshen, CA
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
Clergy should not act as agents of the state in witnessing marriages. All unions gay and straight should be civil. If the couple wishes to have a religious ceremony subsequently then they can do so according to the rules of their house of worship. 8 years ago from a Republican in Putnam Valley, NY
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
Let them marry but deny benefits. 8 years ago from a Republican in Westerville, OH
Call it a union not a marriage. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Brooklyn, NY
If two persons of the same sex desire to perform an abnormal, unnatural, perverted sexual activity between themselves, behind closed doors, so be it. They are no more than human deviates. The overwhelming majority of the human race are attracted to the... 8 years ago from a Republican in St Augustine, FL
Allow civil unions with all the rights of married couples. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Windsor, NJ
Marriage is one man one woman. Marriage between gays should be called a union. 8 years ago from a Republican in Milton, GA
Allow civil unions with the same rights as marriage, but don't redefine the word marriage. 8 years ago from a Republican in Ormond Beach, FL
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
Don't have the government define marriage at all. Have a legal document for co-domestication, or whatever it ends up being called, but leave the definition of marriage as a personal definition. 8 years ago from a Republican in Layton, UT
I don't believe in marriage. 8 years ago from a Republican in Washington, DC
Each one of us eventually has to answer to God for the choices we make in life. I don't think God intended for same sex relationship, I am not here to judge. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Birmingham, AL
Take the government out of marriage and make it a religious decision, while allowing civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual union's benefits. 8 years ago from a Republican in North Little Rock, AR
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
I don't like it, or agree with it, but they're their own persons and can decide what they want to do for themselves. 8 years ago from a Republican in Eagle River, AK
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
The union should be allowed but not called marriage. It should carry all the benefits of marriage.. 8 years ago from a Republican in Kenosha, WI
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Allow for contractual arrangement between gays. 8 years ago from a Republican in Tacoma, WA
NO. god made Adam and Eve for a reason. 8 years ago from a Republican in Spring Grove, PA
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
Call all "marriages" civil unions for govt purposes, and let religion decide what they want to call marriage. 8 years ago from a Republican in Charles City, IA