More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Some College voters
Last answered 2 weeks ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Some College 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.
Education 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
Years of religious upbringing just makes me scared. Whether its right or wrong is not my call. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Alief, TX
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
Allow civil unions and allow churches and other business to refuse service based upon their belief system. 8 years ago from a Republican in Caledonia, MI
It's my belief that we are all sinners saved by grace. While gay marriage is a sin to me, I also acknowledge that I am a sinner and haven't the right to say who should and should not be married. It's like asking should casual sex be... 8 years ago from a Democrat in Pelham, AL
Don't care - Individuals choice. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Pittsburgh, PA
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
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
Marriage should be seperated from the ritual, churches should not be required to marry everyone but, I believe it is financially a better decision to be inclusive of multiple no traditional types of relationships for marriages. 8 years ago from a Green in Moffett, AR
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
Yes, Government has no business in this matter. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Pigeon Forge, TN
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
Allow civil unions with all the rights of married couples. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Windsor, NJ
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
Let the individuals, families, and churches to decide. Not the Federal government. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Medina, WA
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
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
Discontinue marriage altogether. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Canyon Lake, TX
Allow gay marriage to be held only in city halls or courts or anything that has to do with the States for all 50 States and allow these ceremonies to be held in accepted Churches of religion. Whomever disagrees may not take violent action. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Fort Washington, MD
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
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
Yes gay ppl should get married but i should be allowed to have a harem as well. 8 years ago from a Green in Woodway, 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
All marriage should be banned. Couples do not need special rights over singles. 8 years ago from a Green in Columbia City, IN
Yes, but government should be out of marriage. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in North Fork, CA
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
Allow for contractual arrangement between gays. 8 years ago from a Republican in Tacoma, WA
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 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
No, because gay people can't procreate. So this will cause a demand for children of couples who can. Kids will be kidnapped from good families in order to meet that demand and so states can profit off of federal incentives. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Manchaca, TX