The Associated Press

A majority of California voters now support same-sex marriage and oppose amending the state constitution to outlaw gay marriage, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

The results mark the first time in over three decades of polling that more California voters have approved of extending marriage to gay couples than have disapproved, said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. The survey of 1,052 registered voters was conducted over the phone.

“I would say this is a historic turning point or milestone,” DiCamillo said. “We have speculated in the past there would be some time in the future when a majority would support same-sex marriage. Well, the lines have crossed.”

The poll found that 51 percent of respondents backed legalizing same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed it, DiCamillo said.

In 2006, when participants were asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex?” 44 percent said they approved and 50 percent objected. In 1977, the first year Field posted the question to voters, 28 percent approved and 59 percent were opposed.

The poll was conducted from May 17 to May 26 in the days after the California Supreme Court handed down its historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the nation’s most populous state. A smaller percentage of respondants– 48 percent — said they agreed with the court’s decision and 46 percent disagreed.

DiCamillo said the jump in support for same-sex marriage indicates that voters were “influenced in some way by the judgment of the high court.”

“I am left to surmise that had some impact on voters who might have been on the fence or marginally opposed,” he said.

Voters were similarly divided on the subject of a proposed ballot initiative that would overturn the court’s ruling by putting a gay marriage ban in the state constitution. Field asked respondents about it two ways — once referencing the specific measure a group is seeking to get on the November ballot and once talking about a marriage amendment more generally.

Fifty-four percent opposed the amendment when presented with the issue generally, a figure that dropped to 51 percent when respondents were told they might have the chance to vote on a specific measure in November. Support for the amendment stood at 40 percent and 43 percent.

DiCamillo said the numbers could change once the amendment qualifies for the ballot, but the early results indicate “the concept itself is not widely embraced.”

The Field Poll’s finding conflicts with a Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll of 705 voters released last week that found 54 percent backed the proposed gay marriage ban and 35 percent opposed it. The Field survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points on the general amendment question, and plus or minus five percentage points on the more specific question.

Andrew Pugno, legal adviser for the coalition of religious and social conservative groups sponsoring the measure, said the Times poll is more consistent with his group’s internal polling.

“We could acknowledge there has been increasing acceptance of the idea of gay relationships over the last 10 or 20 years, but we think when it comes to marriage there is still a solid majority who want to see it reserved for a man and a woman, and that is all this initiative is about,” Pugno said.

I have no dog in this fight... but I support equality for all citizens... so it's fine by me.

It's also one reason I would hope that you will support the Democrats... and Obama come November.

Because the Dem nominee is supportive of same sex marriage? I don't believe any of them are... I do believe all, including McCain are for Civil Unions only.

I am for a constitutional amendment BANNING RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE

Make 100% of every marriage by a justice of the peace

If someone wants AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE to have a religious ceremony some point LATER, then this is a free country, they can

But 100% should be justice of the peace NON RELIGIOUS and that is the only legal kind, if I had my choice.

Say NO to religion in marriage.

Well I am all for religion in marriage.

But people ought to be free to decide that for themselves.

How about we say no to mixing state and religion in marriage.

We could have the system they have in France. You have a civil ceremony, and then if you want a religious wedding, you can get married in church. You get the legal meaning with the first and the religious meaning with the second.

This is what I mean.

ALL have a civil ceremony (any 2 people).

Then those that choose LATER have a religious one.

And not have the word GOD in the civil ceremony at all.

Who could object to that?

Some would, but I see no compelling reason to object to it.

Now people would say we have always done it this way, why change it?

Or why diminish the role of the church in marriage?

Neither would be good reasons, and I am sure that people would come up with other bad reasons.

I wasn't meaning to imply that Obama was a proponent of same-sex marriage... but maintains a position which is more agreeable on issues concerning same-sex relationships.

If this is an issue of importance to someone... they should support the Party that supports (or most closely supports) their position. That really only leaves one choice.

By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer


SAN FRANCISCO - Barring a stay of a historic California Supreme Court ruling, same-sex couples will be able to wed in the state beginning June 17, according to a state directive issued Wednesday.

The state said it chose June 17 because the state Supreme Court has until the day before to decide whether to grant a stay of its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage.

Gay-rights advocates and some clerks initially thought couples would be able to wed as early as Saturday, June 14. The court's decisions typically take effect 30 days after they are made.

The guidelines from Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, to the state's 58 county clerks also contained copies of new marriage forms that include lines for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. The gender-neutral nomenclature was developed in consultation with county clerks, according to the letter.

"Effective June 17, 2008, only the enclosed new forms may be issued for the issuance of marriage licenses in California," the directive reads.

A group opposed to gay marriage has asked the court to stay its decision until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Passage of the initiative would overrule the Supreme Court.

Under the Supreme Court's regular rules of procedure, justices have until the end of the day June 16 to rule on the stay request, according to the memo sent by e-mail to county clerks. Lawyers involved in the marriage case have said previously the court could grant itself an extra 60 days to consider the stay.

Best thing is to eliminate the word "marriage" and "married" from all tax laws. Substitute the term "civil union". As long as all couples get the same advantages and rights, I am happy.

Let people do what they want when it comes to religion. If their religion doesn't want same sex marriages, let them find another religion.

In Massachusetts there was initial opposition to Gay marriage, but when people realized it had zero negative effect on anything, they changed.

I think we actually have a decent chance of prevailing in CA in November. But it's going to take a lot of work and a lot of money. Nothing can be taken for granted, as it could go either way.