More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Income ($25K-$50K) voters
Last answered 1 week ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Income ($25K-$50K) 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.
Income 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
It shouldn't be called "marriage" because marriage from the very beginning was between a man and a woman. They should call it something else and they should be allowed to be together. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Middlesex, NY
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
Marriage is a business of the state as more often than not it produces children who grow up to be consumers and tax payers at a minimum for state and local levels. If same sex couples want the tax breaks of marriage let them first adopt children as the... 8 years ago from a Republican in Atlanta, GA
For a workers party. For a workers government. For the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual, & transgender marriage - and divorce! For full democratic rights for GBLT people. Defend the 1st Amendment Jeffersonian-Madisonian separation of religion... 8 years ago from a Green in Saint Petersburg, FL
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
Yes, Government has no business in this matter. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Pigeon Forge, TN
Call it a union not a marriage. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Brooklyn, NY
Take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision. Replace marriage under the law with civil unions. Provide government benefits and rights through civil unions, only. People can choose to have a religious marriage, a civil... 8 years ago from a Republican in Normal, IL
I don't need the state to sanction marriage. It's a religious institution. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Baton Rouge, LA
Let states decide through popular vote ONLY, but call them civil unions. Marriage already has a clear definition. 8 years ago from a Republican in Fort Myers, 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
Why not abolish marriage and all other religious beliefs at once rather than piecemeal. 8 years ago from a Green in Redmond, OR
Protect churches right to marry who they wish. But the state must do civil marriage. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Show Low, AZ
I don't believe marriage as long as divorce is legal. The decision to remain committed to another is a second by second decision and the glamorization of marriage has corrupted youth to unrealistic expectations of married life. religion, and the law... 8 years ago from a Green in Racine, WI
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
Gay marriage should not be constrained by any laws in this country. To me, it is the personal decision of each individual as none of our laws should intrude on religious rights and wrongs. Those are issues between each individual and God himself. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Oneco, FL
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
Yes, I don't agree with gay marriage but people should have the right to choose. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Fort Myers, FL
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
Make everyone go to the courthouse and have a judge perform a civil union to make it legal. If you then want to have a "marriage" ceremony, then by all means do so, but without going to the courthouse first, you are not legal and get non of the... 8 years ago from a Democrat in Pendergrass, GA
All marriage should be banned. Couples do not need special rights over singles. 8 years ago from a Green in Columbia City, IN
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
There are already legal provisions for any groups of people to form legal partnerships to share property etc. There is no need to create a right to marry for same sex couples. Marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman and any legislation by any... 8 years ago from a Republican in Black River Falls, WI
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Allow for contractual arrangement between gays. 8 years ago from a Republican in Tacoma, WA
I personally don't believe in gay marriage, but it is not are decision. I believe that we are taking away the right of people by banning marriage in this situation. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Orange City, IA
Marriage is a religious term, so all licensing done by the states are to be legal unions with no prejudice on sexuality or quantity. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Maricopa, AZ
Government should not have authority to license marriage between anybody. Private sector individuals should decide what to do, and what to call it. Marriage is a religious act and should not be permitted by the state to a private sector entity. 8 years ago from a Republican in South Bend, IN
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
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
I doesn't matter to me, if they want to be with the same sex as themselveds, then let it be. It is whatever makes them happy. 8 years ago from a Green in Jacksonville, AL
Let government definitions and religious definitions differ, let all that applies to the government apply to government marriages and vice versa. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Boone, NC