
Opponents of a
proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage
in Virginia marginally picked up support over the past six
weeks, according to a new statewide poll published in
Richmond on Tuesday. Support for the proposed
change in the state constitution dropped from 56% in
late July to 54% in last week's telephone survey of 625
registered voters likely to participate in the November 7 election.
Opposition to the measure, meanwhile, increased
from 38% to 40%, Mason-Dixon Polling and Research
found. Six percent remained undecided, a figure
unchanged from the previous survey.
Virginia is one of at least six states voting on
a constitutional ban on same-sex unions this fall.
Voters in 20 states already have approved such
amendments, most of them overwhelmingly. Virginia already
has a law that forbids same-sex unions, as do 25 other states.
The lead supporters enjoyed narrowed from 18
percentage points to 14 points, a decrease equal to
the poll's margin of error of plus or minus four
percentage points.
"I am very gratified by the fact that the
momentum's all been in our direction," said Claire
Guthrie Gastanaga, manager of the Commonwealth
Coalition, a campaign leading opposition to the amendment.
"My bottom line is that every educated voter is a 'no'
voter, so I've just got to find more voters and
educate them," she said.
Unlike the procedure followed for the July poll,
the polling firm read respondents the full text of the
proposed amendment as it will appear on the ballot. In
the previous poll, participants were read only the first
of three sentences that would be written into the state constitution.
The first sentence states that unions of one man
and one woman will be recognized in Virginia as
marriage. The final two sentences bar the state or any
localities from recognizing any legal arrangements intended
to approximate marriage.
Omitting the final two sentences was critical,
Gastanaga and other opponents argue, because it could
jeopardize the right of unmarried individuals to enter
into personal contracts.
"I guess they didn't get the big jump they
[opponents] thought they would from including the
whole ballot question," said Chris Freund, a spokesman
for the Family Foundation. (Bob Lewis, AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.