Poll: Support of gay marriage law high in NY
Revelers celebrate during the Gay Pride parade on June 26, 2011 in New York City.
June 28th, 2011
10:56 AM ET
3 years ago

Poll: Support of gay marriage law high in NY

(CNN) – The majority of voters in New York supported the Empire State law allowing same-sex couples to marry, but divides existed among age groups and religious affiliation, according to a new poll.

The Quinnipiac Poll released Tuesday showed 54 percent of voters backed the measure that Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law Friday. Seventy percent of younger voters, or those under 35 years of age, supported the law, a number far exceeding the 57 percent support from those over 65 years of age.

When broken down by religion, Jewish voters supported the law by a greater margin than Catholic and Protestant voters. Jews supported it with 67 percent, Protestants with 54 percent and Catholics with 48 percent.

Voters who did not align themselves with a religion supported the measure with 78 percent.

Cuomo signed the measure after it passed a Republican-controlled Senate Friday night. The law will grant same-sex couples the right of inheritance, employer health benefits and a host of state tax benefits.

The survey of 1,317 voters was conducted before the legislation became law, from June 20 through June 26. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.


Filed under: Gay rights • New York • Polls
soundoff (49 Responses)
  1. Rudy NYC

    I have already expressed my personal feelings on same sex marriage on a number of occasions. I don't like, but I think The Constitution (14th Amendment, Article 1) prohibits States from passing laws that prohibit it. I also feel that laws permitting "same sex unions" instead of "same sex marriages" constitute an instrument that is "separate but equal," which has also been declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

    June 28, 2011 11:05 am at 11:05 am |
  2. Sniffit

    "Seventy percent of younger voters, or those under 35 years of age, supported the law"

    Now do you understand why the GOP wants to obliterate the Dept. of Education and rewrite all the text books?

    June 28, 2011 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  3. RobK

    The only reason the government should be in the business of marriage is to provide incentives for parents to stay together to raise children. With no-fault divorce and, now, homosexual marriage, the government should get out of the business entirely. Let churches handle marriages. After all, marriage is a religious institution. This will save quite a bit of taxpayer dollars. Those that aren't sure of their spouses can hire a lawyer if they want some sort of legal arrangement.

    June 28, 2011 11:14 am at 11:14 am |
  4. Inrealityhere

    The polling must have been in NYC; put this on the state ballot and it would go down. MOST New Yorkers statewide are opposed. Republicans who voted for the law campaigned saying they would not vote for it. They will not serve another term for lying to their constituents. Oh, wait...that doesn't matter anymore.

    June 28, 2011 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  5. Sniffit

    "The only reason the government should be in the business of marriage is to provide incentives for parents to stay together to raise children."

    If the gov't did that, even if they removed any reference of requirement that people be married and instead relied on their parental status alone, it would still require equal treatment of same-sex couples who have adopted, are fostering (or otherwise raising a child...like in guardianship situations) or who have their own offspring from previous relationships. You can't win by avoiding it: the law requires equal treatment, period...LIVE WITH IT.

    June 28, 2011 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  6. Rudy NYC

    Can someone explain how the proponents of "smaller government" figure that creating so many laws that define or restrict what we can and cannot do, what our can kids should be taught in schools, what restrictions are placed on us at the voting booths, and more; how does such legislature create "smaller government", keep government out of our personal lives, and how such laws actually increase our freedoms by placing defintions and limitations on what we can do and how we should do it?

    June 28, 2011 11:22 am at 11:22 am |
  7. Inrealityhere

    Yes, Sniffit, I understand perfectly. The liberal influence in the government schools along with most of the media outlets has destroyed the core of traditional and moral fiber in this post great nation. Of course people like you, evidently, think youth are wiser than those with years of experience. Hitler took advantage of that. So did....

    June 28, 2011 11:23 am at 11:23 am |
  8. Sniffit

    "After all, marriage is a religious institution. "

    BTW, not the "marriage" recognized in our laws. Our laws are simply recognizing a private contract between two individuals...and that's it. The First Amendment prevents any other reading of the use of the word "marriage" in our laws. It's simply an unhappy coincidence that the word means one thing in our laws and another thing to people in their private lives (several other things actually, depending on the personal religious significance or lack thereof). People who argue for the separate-but-equal crap of "civil unions" don't know it, but they are unwittingly highlighting this distinction and making a case for EVERY "marriage" being called a "civil union" in our laws.

    June 28, 2011 11:23 am at 11:23 am |
  9. Scott in Atlanta

    Of course they do, because just like with this site, it is taboo to verbalize that you do NOT agree with it. I would imagine that there are a whole lot of people who just don't say anything. This leaves pollsters with only the "vocal" supporters to survey. So yes. It may appear to be widely accepted, but the truth is probably closer to those who don't, can't seem to find a way to dissent in a PC way.

    You'll be accused of being Hom-oph-obic or "In the closet..." It's unfathomable to some, that some people see that this lifestyle is just not right. Lo.rd help us if we continue to form legislation based on what just "feels right". Some dirty ole men, who have they're sights on the adolescent boy next door, will be happy to see us moving in that direction.

    June 28, 2011 11:25 am at 11:25 am |
  10. Sniffit

    "The polling must have been in NYC; put this on the state ballot and it would go down. "

    A. You clearly know nothing about random sampling methodology; and

    B. Even were this to be put on a ballot and voted down, the Constitution prohibits the majority from voting on what Constitutional rights it feels like allowing an unpopular minority to enjoy. See, Prop 8 a/k/a the Hindenburg of anti-gay propaganda.

    June 28, 2011 11:27 am at 11:27 am |
  11. Chris~Albany, NY

    Um no it's really not. Our local news station, Ch. 6, did a poll yesterday. The question: What do you think about same-sex marriage being legalized in New York state?. The answer: 57% said they were "ANGRY" The numbers don't jive. This should have been put to the people to vote, not a bunch of corrupt pols.

    June 28, 2011 11:30 am at 11:30 am |
  12. Rudy NYC

    Inrealityhere wrote:
    The polling must have been in NYC; put this on the state ballot and it would go down
    ------–
    Don't you think that such a referendum would be judged as unconstitutional? Referendums are for school budgets, term limits, and the like. They are not to used to allow the majority to decide the rights of the minority. That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

    What if someone decided to push for another law based upon their religous morals. What if someone pushed for legislation banning the consumption of pork? How is the question of same sex marriage any different? I cannot find one...not by looking at the Constitution, which is where I am supposed to look.

    June 28, 2011 11:33 am at 11:33 am |
  13. Erik

    For crying out loud, have all these people just stepped off of the spaceship? Were they all born yesterday? Don't they know that the Supreme Being, commonly called God, created everything, and owns it all? He owns me. He owns you. This is true even is you don't believe it. This is true even is you deny it. He has declared certain behaviors popular among humans as evil, and if we want to have a good life on Earth and be in a good situation after we leave Earth when our bodies die, then we need to live according to God's teachings. Many find that stealing comes natural to them, but God says not to do it. Same for murder, or any sex outside of marriage, which, of course, is a covenant between a man and a woman. The truth is what it is, and parades and laws and books and social movements do not change God's truth. Anyone advocating gay rights is choosing evil. If a human legislature passes a law stating that two men can marry each other, it will never be a legitimate marriage. Any legislature that passes such a law, or any court upholding gay rights renders itself bogus.

    June 28, 2011 11:33 am at 11:33 am |
  14. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    Who makes or designs your clothes? In the fashion world most designers are gay/lesbian people and you are wearing their designs. When a man wears a suit and a woman says "I like your suit and how it looks on you", guess what that designer is probably a gay man and that suit is hanging in your closet and vice versa for women. My point is, stop hating gays/lesbians because you don't think about that when you purchase those gorgeous clothes.

    June 28, 2011 11:34 am at 11:34 am |
  15. RobK

    The numbers don't make sense: 70% support for those under 35 and 57% support for those over 65 mean that those between 35 and 65 must not support by a large margin to have the average come down to 54%.

    June 28, 2011 11:35 am at 11:35 am |
  16. RobK

    There is nothing in the Constitution that says that everyone has to be treated the exact same way. The rich are taxed at a higher rate than the poor and lose a lot of tax deductions. How is that equal protection under the law?

    June 28, 2011 11:37 am at 11:37 am |
  17. Rudy NYC

    Inrealityhere wrote:
    Yes, Sniffit, I understand perfectly. The liberal influence in the government schools along with most of the media outlets has destroyed the core of traditional and moral fiber in this post great nation.
    -----–
    I recommend the "Christie Solution." Send your kids to a private school. Leave the public schools for the aethists.

    If you support "intelligent design" being taught in public schools, the let me ask you this. Whose design should be taught in schools? Pleae do not tell me that the Chritian version of creation should be taught to the exclusion of all others. This is a country that promises freedom of religion, for all of its' citizens.

    June 28, 2011 11:41 am at 11:41 am |
  18. RobK

    The poll actually had 37% support for those over 65.

    June 28, 2011 11:42 am at 11:42 am |
  19. Sniffit

    "Hitler took advantage of that. "

    Aaaaah, Godwin's Law rears it's head. You've got nothing. Values and morals are taught in the home (or not). It's not the lpace nor the purview of the public school system to do so. You want your kid to grow up to be a good little conservative robot, then you find him a good little conservative robot factory. Public schools should be teaching facts, accurate historical record, science, etc., not conservative rewritten history like that sold by Beck University and the TX School Board. Newsflash: the founding fathers did not see this as a "Christian Nation" and they quite explicitly said so. In fact, Christians were fairly well persecuted when they started flooding here in the early and mid 1800s....people claimed they were beholden to the Pope and would attempt to force everyone to live by their Christian beliefs if allowed to vote and hold office. Funny how prescient that turned out to be, eh?

    June 28, 2011 11:43 am at 11:43 am |
  20. shadow_man

    To all the older anti-gay folks who wonder why they will lose. It's not the "skewed" polling, or the "liberal" media. It's because of facts. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality or gay marriage, and they are normal, biological parts of human and animal sexuality. I have seen every argument against homosexuality and gay marriage, and can easily (including religious ones) refute all of them with no sweat. Anti-gay arguments hold no weight. The younger generations tend to always be wiser than the older generations because older people get stuck in the past, while youth progress (abolition of slavery, womans rights, civil rights)

    June 28, 2011 11:43 am at 11:43 am |
  21. Inrealityhere

    Sniffit, you clearly know nothing or care not about the history of civilization.

    In regard to Prop.8, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on this issue but chances are the well funded minority will do all they can to stave off that decision until the court is liberal enough for them to take a chance.
    Regardless of that outcome, the Supreme God will make the final judgement. I can accept that.

    June 28, 2011 11:44 am at 11:44 am |
  22. Sniffit

    "For crying out loud, have all these people just stepped off of the spaceship?"

    Yes. The Mothership has landed. Take us to your leaders. We've got the funk to share.

    June 28, 2011 11:46 am at 11:46 am |
  23. Rudy NYC

    Erik wrote:
    For crying out loud, have all these people just stepped off of the spaceship? Were they all born yesterday? Don't they know that the Supreme Being, commonly called God, created everything, and owns it all? He owns me. He owns you. This is true even is you don't believe it.
    ----–
    No, it is not true. We have what is called separation of church and state in this nation. Some religions say that there is more than one God. No, what you wrote is not true. Sorry.

    June 28, 2011 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  24. RobK

    The government does all sorts of social, economic and political engineering through its programs and tax policies, benefiting some groups of people over others. This ostensibly is for the benefit to the country as a whole. There is no defensible reason for the government to subsidize homosexuals getting married- there is no benefit to the country.

    June 28, 2011 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  25. once upon a horse

    once again governement needs to keep its' nose out of peoples' personal lives. Funny that the party of small government has little problem going after social issues. It may not be for me, but I say if 2 people of the same sex want to marry then LET them.

    June 28, 2011 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
1 2