YES LEADS BY 18

MASON DIXON

Question Number 1 on the November ballot asks, “Shall Article One, the Bill of Rights, of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state that only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions?”

YES 56%
NO 38%

REGIONALS:
Richmond:                    61% YES, 33% NO
Roanoke/Southwest:     64% YES, 32% NO
Hampton Roads:           57% YES, 36% NO
Northern Virginia:          44% YES, 48% NO
Shenandoah/Piedmont:  63% YES, 32% NO
Lynchburg/Southside:     64% YES, 32% NO

DEMOCRATS:    27% YES, 63% NO
REPUBLICANS:  82% YES, 15% NO
INDEPENDENTS: 53% YES, 41% NO

Comments

If you dont like it GET OUT

[BDM]

Clarify the yes. Is this for the marriage ammendment?

[Not Larry Sabato]

Yes.

[Not Huey Long]

What an improvement on George Mason's work!! Why couldn't he have thought about such eloquent discrimination?

[Mason Conservative]

You think the founders would have supported gay marriage?

[Mason Conservative]

I wonder what the breakdown is of supporters of this to Allen's support? If this wins big, is there a chance Webb could beat Allen?

[DukieDem]

I think the founders wouldn't have approved of a lot of the things our country has done in the last 232 years. Frankly I don't give a damn what they would say about giving people the right to enter into civil unions.

And if we're going to play the founding fathers game, have Felix read Jefferson's articles on the seperation of church and state and the role of science in society. If TJ knew that someone claiming to be his ideological heir was embracing radical religion (Pat Robertson) and rejecting science (stem cell bill), he'd probably beat him with his cowboy boots.

[Not Huey Long]

I believe its an abomination for this generation to revise sacred text based on a political agenda. I'm for protecting our existing rights and not limiting them for an ephemeral election issue.

[hrconservative]

I am hoping this continues. Confusion is coming though by opponents of the bill.

[charles]

DukieDem, if you think Jefferson would have even imagined a federal government spending money for ANY medical research, you need to read those documents you suggest Allen look at.

Banning federal funding for embryonic stem cell research wasn't about thwarting science, it was about the use of tax dollars for research that involve acts that a fair number of taxpayers find offensive.

Before someone inaccurately compares this to funding a war effort, war is a legitimate and necessary function of the federal government, while embryonic stem cell research isn't.

NHL, the Virginia Constitution is to be sure a fine document, but not only has it been revised many times in it's history, it is hardly a "sacred text".

[Not Larry Sabato]

I have to demand, anyone who is calling this "sacred text" or anything like it.... have you ever READ the VA constitution???

[Not Huey Long]

Article 1 reads "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

And you want to add the marriage amendment to this statement? Shame.

[brimur]

This shows that it is not a hopeless task to work against the passage of this hateful amendment. This election is going to be a real turnout election.

Anyone interested in helping, should go to http://www.votenova.org/ and find out more.

[Outside Observer]

Somebody fill me in...I know there was a movement in the General Assembly to get the full amendment text inserted into the ballot question. Did that pass?

The full amendment text is much more broad and effects more people (including unmarried hetero couples) than what this pollster asked in their question.

So to be at 38% NO with basically the worst possible phrasing of the question is not bad in my opinion.

[GinterParked]

Fine post, Ben. Mason-Dixon does a lovely poll. Damn shame they only asked one-third of the question.

As you'll learn at http://www.votenova.org/node/204, the Commonwealth Coalition has been polling this issue since long before either Mr. Mason or Ms. Dixon got out of bed. What's interesting is that in the baseline poll, conducted last summer, the CC (in a poll led by Jim Gilmore pollster Tony Fabrizio) asked the same question as M-D. And got nearly the same result.

Last month, the CC and Fabrizio asked a larger sample of likely voters, with a smaller margin of error what they thought about the *actual* wording of the amendment. The results? The 23% "lead" for yes from 2005 was eliminated, leaving the yes vote at under 50%.

We know what we need to do, and we know that if we do it, the amendment will fail. Voters who know what they're voting for are opposed to this ham-handed attempt to marginalize all unmarried relationships.

Virginia voters, this year, for the first time, will have the full text of an amendment printed on the ballot. Apart from the fact that they're simply lazy (and cheap... after all, reading the entire ballot question lengthens the call, and increases the cost of the poll), shouldn't we expect more from such an august polling firm?

Who cares about giving homosexuals special rights? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?

[Not Huey Long]

It's not about giving homosexuals "special rights". It's about preserving existing rights and not codifying discrimination into our Constitution!

[Vivian J. Paige]

Ginter Parked is absolutely correct. M-D is normally a good polling firm but I'm quite surprised that they did not include the full text of the amendment in their polling.

[Outside Observer]

Ummm 10:23pm, nobody is trying to give anyone any "special rights."

This is amendment is about saving the few rights unmarried couples and families (both straight and gay) currently have.

[Outside Observer]

Everyone interested in defeating this amendment should go to www.votenova.org and request a bumper sticker!

I typically question the general effectiveness of campaign bumper stickers, but I think this campaign is an exception.

I have found my bumper sticker to be a great conversation starter about the amendment and its great chance to EDUCATE people on the actual wording of the amendment.

I want to see more "Vote No, Virginia" stickers around town!

With a few angry people trying to use activist judges to legalize homo-sex "marriage", isn't building in protections into the state Constitution a good idea?

[Not Huey Long]

Sacred (secular defintions): 1) highly valued and important, 2) worthy of respect; venerable.

NLS...so you're saying the VA Bill of Rights which was the model of the US Bill of Rights doesn't fall under these criteria?

[GinterParked]

10:35: ROTFLMAO. Dude, we've about struck out lately on the whole activist judge, gay agenda thing. Tell you what... if there's anyone who reads this blog who thinks that Leroy Hassell is going to wake up one day and decide to sanction same-sex marriage, I'll literally bet the farm. Ben can hold the deed of trust.

Give me a break.

The amendment is quite straightforward: only one and one woman can create a marriage. The government shall not grant special rights for other people who are in "partnerships".

Homosexuals can still have parternships, but just no extra benefits (which they don't really need since contracts and powers of attorney can easily solve these needs).

[Vivian J. Paige]

Anon 10:43 - the issue of partnerships is up in the air due to the broad nature of the second part of the amendment. And not just relationship partnerships. Take a look at the VoteNo.org site and see the concerns of Norfolk's Retail Alliance regarding business partnerships.