More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from California voters
Last answered 4 hours ago
Distribution of answers submitted by California 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
7 years ago by twentytwowords.com
7 years ago by bbc.co.uk
7 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
I think the states should decide, but the definition of marriage should not be changed. 7 years ago from a Republican in Ceres, CA
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... 7 years ago from a Republican in Goshen, CA
Separate religion and state. The only thing here that concerns the government is the role of a 'partner' for tax purposes. From a religious point of view, each religious organization should be free to set their own agenda. 7 years ago from a Republican in Walnut Creek, CA
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. 7 years ago from a Republican in Cutten, CA
Yes, but government should be out of marriage. 7 years ago from a Libertarian in North Fork, CA