Look who supports same-sex marriage

Sorry Joe -- we're not listening

The latest Field Poll is very good news for supporters of same-sex marriage in California -- residents of this state now support gay nuptials by almost 2-1. That's a dramatic change since 2008, when Prop. 8 passed; in fact, the poll shows the approval margin widening significantly in just the past two years. And we all know that this is a demographic shift (voters under 40 are in favor by 78 percent, and most of the opposition is among the 60-plus crowd) so the numbers are only going in one direction.

But here's one of the more interesting elements of the poll: In California, 55 percent of Catholics support same-sex marriage.

That's something the College of Cardinals ought to be (but clearly isn't) thinking about in the upcoming Papal Enclave. Frankly, very few Catholics in the US or Europe pay much attention to the church's teachings on sex anymore. And as we all know, once the faithful decide that half of what you're saying is pretty stupid, they're going to pay less attention to the rest of it. In other words, the Church is becoming far less relevant in this country, and another conservative white Pope -- and that's who's likely getting elected -- will just continue that trend.



Can't we just revel in the sheer and utter Popelessness that is enveloping the planet right now?

Posted by marcos on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 10:52 am

I know -- nobody's in charge! The whole Catholic Church is without a leader! Go crazy! Fornicate freely!

Posted by tim on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

With no Head Borg in charge, can we expect for the faithful to be wandering the streets aimlessly until a new one asserts its authoritah?

Posted by marcos on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 3:11 pm

does not mean that opposition will "die out".

People become more conserative as they age, so I would not bank on it.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 2:07 pm

The generation that grew up with the Civil Rights Movement didn't become racists when they got older. Today's young people will support same-sex marriage when they're 90. Older people sometimes become more conservative on economic issues and a few other things, but not on core civil-rights issues.

Posted by tim on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 2:36 pm

like crime, for instance. And pornography and prostitution and drug abuse.

I'm still cool with abortion, but my point is that it's a two-way street.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 2:50 pm


I know I for one have become more progressive as I got older, saw more of the world, gained more experience. When I was 16, I was pretty much a libertarian.

Then I grew up.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 10:20 pm

I see how the government fucks everything up it touches, I see how giving people more choices means they just fuck that up too. The various levels of government throws money at all sorts of useless nonsense, such as "defense," tunnels to Chinatown and rewards for breeding and illegal immigration.

So as a true liberal I am happy to let people make their own choices, and also let them suffer the consequences. Greg like "liberals" try and take the consequences out of shitty choices.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 10:48 pm

Libertarianism... it's a perfect philosophy for a disaffected teen who thinks they know everything, they're smarter than everyone else, and can do everything on their own. That's why I was stunned when you mentioned you're pushing 50. I always thought you were some brooding nihilistic kid operating out of his parents' basement, because that's the mental age you seem to be stuck at.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 11:10 pm

There is the Ayn Rand strain of stupidity conflated with liberatarianism, and there is the Peter Pan strain of liberalism that Greg adheres to. Also interesting that Greg complains that I attack positions that he doesn't hold.

There were various off shoots of the liberalism of the 60's, it predates this but this is the modern construct.

One off shoot of liberalism is attempting taking over the old government and forcing the new one upon people for their own good. That is the Greg / Bay Guardian world view, they think people are too stupid to make their own choices so the state needs to do it for them. In the opinion of this group the state had to many wrong rules, so thanks to Greg type "liberals" outdated rules are not removed but updated. This group hates the government, while wanting to take it over and force it upon the citizens in another way.

There is another view, another old time liberal view, the government should leave people alone. It should remove government from people's lives, the government that governs least governs best. Progressives will agree with this until a parent and child wants to enroll in JROTC, then they know best.


I get a lot of entertainment from Greg, he references himself in why things are universally wrong. His views on evolution and human nature are based on how he thinks people should behave in his Utopia. He thinks Sit Lie is a bad thing (as do I) but his enlightened view is that allowing parents and their children to make individual choices around JROTC is an atrocity.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 11:59 pm

I'm one of those who thinks that the government should not ban smoking in public but if someone smokes in public and carelessly exhales a lungful of carcinogen into my breathing space, I get to assault them as if they had pulled a gun on me.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 8:01 am

politics views that you hold?

Reminds me of a time a couple of years ago when everyone was discussing ObamaCare. I was in an elevator talking to a friend and telling him that I though ObamaCare would be a disaster because we cannot afford it.

Some complete stranger in the elevator suddenly starts berating me about my politics and being really quite aggressive about it.

That wasn't you was it?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 8:14 am

No, because I'd have been assaulted with a deadly, carcinogenic toxic chemical.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 8:27 am

smoking in public.

Nor do you have any reasonable expectation that you can walk down a public street and not inhale some cigarette smoke or, for that matter, other forms of pollution from vehicles, factories or other sources of particulate matter.

So you would be the one who gets arrested, sued or worse.

If you do not want to breathe tobacco smoke, I suggest that you never leave your home and keep your windows closed.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 8:36 am

Isn't it against the law to assault someone with a known toxic chemical?

Posted by marcos on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 9:17 am

you are equally guilty of assault. (By the way, it's actually a "battery" -- assault encompasses a far wider range of behavior including insults and shouting.)

Cigarettes are bad. People can act badly. Fight the power. All that. But the attention to second hand smoke is in large measure the exact "liberals trying to tell people how to run their lives" crap that you and others elsewhere have inveighed against -- except it is not in any way exclusively liberals that do it.

More properly, this "trying to tell other people how to run their lives" is a manifestation of the stupid human trick known as "will to power." I'd say it affects righties far more.

FYI, I'm a non-smoker. I just don't like to find myself getting all falsely moralistic and imperious about it.

Down with R.J. Reynolds!

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 10:30 am

So your assault on someone who does would be unjustified in law, and therefore itself criminal.

But you're too much of a weakling to ever assault anyone anyway.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 10:48 am

Blowing toxic smoke in someone's face is assault, just like spraying them with the garden hose is. Gas, liquid, solid, phase does not matter.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 10:52 am

There is a distinction and that's why the familiar phrase "assault and battery" exists.

I'm not going to argue pointlessly about this, but above you seemed to be saying you'd feel justified in delivering a beat down to anybody you see smoking on the sidewalk -- even if they consciously and assiduously attempting to avoid getting smoke in your direction.

It's a manifestation of "people trying to tell others how to live their lives" that you've elsewhere displayed such misplaced fascination with.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 11:08 am

into your face. But even then your remedy would be legal not physical.

Normal "second hand smoke" is not an assault in law. If you do not like that, then change the law.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 11:09 am

SFBG-type "liberals" are not liberal at all. Liberalism assumes that "the people know best" and that government cannot be trusted. Exactly the position of the founding fathers, of course.

SFBG-type "progressives" are actually regressive types who wish to trample all over peoples' rights in order to institute centralized "command and control" power structures. They believe that a bureaucrat should run business lines and run peoples' lives because that means there is "accountibility".

In practice, you end up with exactly what failed in every communist and socialist nation that has tried that.

The true liberals seek less government, lower taxes and more freedom. Call that libetarianism, if they like, but by that standard, the founding fathers were all libetarians and the US Constitution is a libetarian document.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 8:18 am

You market trolls love to wax poetic about personal responsibility, but the real consequence of the policies you support result in the 1% being free of any responsibility at all for their actions. The 1% win regardless of whether they screw up or not. Meanwhile, everybody else pays the consequences of their screwups, they pay the consequences even if something happens to them that's no fault of their own, and they pay the consequences of the screwups of the 1% too. It's worse than the law of the jungle. In the jungle, it's every animal for itself. But what even the strongest and most vicious animal can't do, is pass on their power to their offspring, and when they cease to be able to defend being at the top of the heap on their own merits, they're subject to the same forces as everyone else. In the human jungle that the libertarians are trying hard to create, the strongest and most vicious animals not only get to bully everyone else, but they get to pass on that ability to their parasitic offspring, and they're protected by a network of laws and cops and miltaries that protect their privilege to do things they could never do just on their own.

The libertarians say they want less government, but that's a total lie. They want government to stay out of the business of protecting the weak from the strong. But they want a strong and powerful government to viciusly and brutally protect the power of the rich and the strong, against the interests of everyone else.

What progressives want is civilization. Progressives want government to stay out of people's business in their personal lives. (And incidentally, I never once advocated denying parents and young people the right to join JROTC; if you want to go to cannon fodder propaganda camp, go for it. Just do it on your own time and don't ask the schools to pay for it. The schools are in the business of educating kids and nurturing their growth, not aiding the already substantial military propaganda machine).

However, progressives recognize that everybody makes bad choices from time to time. And sometimes -often, actually -shit happens that isn't the result of bad choices at all, but of lousy luck. And even more often, the shit that happens isn't the result of personal bad choices, or even bad luck, but systemic problems that disadvantage some and give others an unfair advantage. It is these things that society can and should mitigate. And you don't even have to come out of some great sense of justice; just as a practical matter, we all (or at least 99% of us) do better when society mitigates these things rather than exacerbates them. The research is clear that on a whole variety of seemingly unrelated social ills, we do better with progressive policies.

If people did better on indicators of health and wellbeing from libertarian policies, then I'd still be a libertarian. It's a tempting philosophy. But they don't . Once I grew up, I realized that organizing society around that philosophy only leads to misery. So that's where I'm coming from.

Anyway, I'm sure the trolls will all pounce now. Go at it, trolls. Have the last word, because you need to have the last word. Me, I'm done. It's a beautiful day and I'm going hiking.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 8:58 am

on what character the newly minted democracy ought to have was modified out of neccessity in subsequent years.

Reactionaries of today don't want to return to the agrarian/libertarian situation of the founders' day; they want autocracy, dollar-democracy.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 9:43 am

the founding fathers sat down to define how government should be restricted. And anyway, the same government corruption existed in agrarian times as now.

Most Americans do not want their government to have even more power and control.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 10:45 am

We want Star Trek, they want Mad Max.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 9:50 am

Not a model progressives should adopt.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 10:46 am

They had a prime directive.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 10:51 am

Oh well, that's all right then.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 11:07 am

Again he makes the mistake of taking Randroid talking points as libertarian.

Posted by matlock on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 4:53 pm

He really doesn't need to say any more than that.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 5:09 pm

are opportunists. like everyone else, they are just more over the top and wanting to get over.

It's hard to be try and be coherent I admit.

I think people should be allowed to make stupid choices, become drug addicts, or become studies majors, not my business. It's not my job to foot the bill for your idiocy though. If you incurred thousands in taking studies classes and your job prospects are nill, pay your loans, don't be a progressive and expect that debt to be forgiven. I don't care that you made such shitty dead end choices. We are not all in this together when I have to pay for your whims. If you develop a taste for meth, good for you, just don't make it cost me any money. I don't want to invade other countries, I see no need for it at all, still it is costing me money. etc....

The most strange thing about the modern progressive is the want to change societies rules, not do away with the rules but to remake them.

Posted by matlock on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 5:11 pm

rather than try and better themselves thru, say, study and hard work, they seek instead to hide behind a political viewpoint that will actually reward them for being losers, while punishing those who worked harder and were more successful.

It's a con trick, of course, which is why the voters always see through it.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

you sound really different and your grammar is off ... almost like you're not the same matlock who's been commenting here daily for years ....

Posted by marke on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 5:47 pm

He's just an opportunist who wants every opportunity to keep the money he had an opportunity to come across in this opportunity society.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 5:57 pm

having a good sense of grammar. The greatest distinguishing characteristic of matlock's deposits here, of course, is false imputations -- blandly and habitually put forward without the least bit of justification.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 6:03 pm

Matlock's grammar has never been flawless, but it doesn't sound like matlock for another reason. It's missing his usual ticks -not one "har" or "heh" or "odd" or "interesting."

Anyway, it was 70 degrees and it was great to be outside. Looks like I didn't miss much.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 9:37 pm

Didn't even leave the house today, got whatever that head cold is. Blah.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 01, 2013 @ 10:02 pm

We don't need anymore of that kind of bias.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Mar. 02, 2013 @ 3:20 am

Witness how the poison it attempts to spread is designed to work on several levels.

In this case, the LS critter is both maligning a thoughtful and informed commenter *and* seeking to sow division between ethnic groups; classic divide and conquer.

Why can't progressives have rhetoric of such potency? In part, there's a matter of ethics and sense of social good which stands in the way.

Progressives don't pathologically fear being associated with the majority groups. We don't seek to distinguish ourselves from the "hoi polloi" through covetously collected riches.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 02, 2013 @ 6:53 am

No, progressives have crafted their own languages of exclusion that are different from those of the right wing. Right wing language appeals to people as strong independent beings while left wing language alienates people with weak and paternalistic language. Right or wrong in its substance, as propaganda, that is the operative linguistic dynamic.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 02, 2013 @ 8:13 am

doctrine regarding sex and whatnot. (What you been up to, marcos?) Corporatists want us to give up our franchise rights and knuckle under to corporate power like good little peons.

On the other hand, progressives want to take back power and dishonestly accrued wealth from the 1%; too fucking weak and paternalistic for marcos.

Surely marcos is able to find fault with any progressive notion.... "neither right nor left... nor center!"... marcos is a complete mystery man. Broken clock.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 02, 2013 @ 10:57 am

San Franciscan progressives they think the pope lives California.

Tim's obsession with race is comical and stupid again. If the Catholic's appointed a African or Latin American pope, that pope would be far more obsessed with that gay thing than a European white male.

Do progressives think?

Posted by matlock on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 9:00 pm

No one within the church's hierarchy gives a shit about public opinion.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 9:17 pm

The Church Hierarchy in Europe cares about the views of "white" liberals in California?

Tim's race crazy is odd, if the various African and Latino Catholic areas had their say on pope 2013, these folks would turn back the clock even farther.

While self hating Tim spends his time bitching about white folk his pets could care less.

Tim's racialist ravings are convoluted, out of touch, comical, while also being a little sickening.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 10:19 pm

Tim's quaint belief that the more melatonin in one's skin = more socialist or communist or whatever is a relic from the 1960s that needs to end. Just look at all the protest churches that hate gay people who are aligning with the churches in Africa for an example.

By Tim's calculations, because we have Chinese Americans as Mayor, Assessor, Board President, chair of the DCCC and 1/4 of the Supervisors, this city should be a socialist Paradise where the nonwhites do what the white lefties couldn't.

Then again, someone so reality challenged they think they are the "publisher" of a paper owned by a chain who is the real publisher can't be counted on to think much. And anyone notice how paper thin the print edition is? And mostly written by 2 people?

Buh Bye, see you on the unemployment line!

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 10:54 pm

You would think that such a shouter would not be so uninformed as to who are the biggest religious homophobes world wide. When Euro religious types spout the same non sense that one could hear from crazed African and Spanish TV religio nuts, you would think that a normal person would discard race for once.

Why would Tim complain about Euro whites when the minorities world wide as a whole are so much worse? So strange.

I'm waiting for a Bay Guardian apologia for female circumcision justified by capitalism.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 11:24 pm