More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Republicans
Last answered 1sec ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Republicans.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 12, 2011. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Choose a demographic filter
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Washington D.C.
- West Virginia
- Fox News
- Google Plus
- Project To Restore America
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
1 year ago by allout.org
1 year ago by bbc.co.uk
1 year ago by newyorker.com
1 year ago by net.au
2 years ago by canberratimes.com.au
2 years ago by net.au
2 years ago by canberratimes.com.au
2 years ago by thevine.com.au
2 years ago by youtube.com
2 years ago by cnn.com
2 years ago by theonion.com
2 years ago by huffingtonpost.com
Data based on 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Learn more about Gay Marriage
In 1996 the federal government enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which allowed states to not recognize same sex marriages granted by other states. In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that that DOMA was unconstitutional. Currently, thirteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. See recent gay marriage news
More stances on this issue
In all technical terms, it is constitutional, there is nothing illegal about it and the choice belongs to the two individuals. 2yr ago from a Republican in Brownwood, TX.
Government should not be involved in marriage. Let each individual decide how they want to live their lives. 2yr ago from a Republican in Las Vegas, NV.
Free country, people should be free to do what they want. 2yr ago from a Republican in Beaverton, OR.
Civil Unions for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Separation of Church and State is well documented. The State should not be allowed to name one of its numerous licenses after a Christian sacrament. The Church is allowed to dictate who it will and will not provide a marriage ceremony. This should solve the whole thing. It's semantics. 1yr ago from a Republican in Ambler, PA.
Yes, but I still feel a bit uneasy about this as small children may be exposed to public displays affection within the same sex, which I do not feel is natural, but understand, this is something you are born with. However, as the years pass, this will be considered 'normal' and this issue will be a thing of the past. 2mon ago from a Republican in Concord, CA.
Have no laws concerning Gay Marriage at all. Allow people to live according to the dictates of their conscience. Prevent those who would interfere with the actions people take for themselves. This should apply to the government as well. Gay Marriage should be worked out locally or statewide but the aforementioned should still apply. 2mon ago from a Republican in Rosemead, CA.
I believe people should have the right to do what they want without others having a say in their personal matters. I will not go out of my way to help make it illegal nor will i go out of my way to legal. 2mon ago from a Republican in Potwin, KS.
No, allow civil unions and increase what civil unions mean and rights within civil unions. Marriage by definition is between man and women because there is a natural way to create offspring, however difficult or easy that may be for each individual marriage. Churches should always remain separate from government, which means they are to be allowed to refuse marriages per their choice. They currently do that with traditional man and women marriages when they feel there is not enough preparation among other reasons. So that should be continued, a church is a following of people not just a building to be admired. 2mon ago from a Republican in Aiken, SC.
Marriage should be a solely religious ceremony and non-religious people should not be married, but have a civil union and a church should have the right to marry, or deny marriage, to whom they choose. 2mon ago from a Republican in Carleton, MI.
Marriage is something that everyone should have the right to, but depending on the length and strength of their marriage is how they should be judged and giving rights. 2mon ago from a Republican in Carson City, MI.
Take the government out of marriage and make all couples, heterosexual and homosexual, apply for a legal partnership in order to get any legal benefits. Allow churches to decide who gets married but the marriage is recognized by no one except the couple, the church they marry in, and their God. 2mon ago from a Republican in Lombard, IL.
This is not a decision for government or church but for two committed individuals, as is the right for a man and woman to share a commitment without being married. 2mon ago from a Republican in Tallahassee, FL.
From a governmental stand point the term marriage should be changed to civil union for all couples. The term marriage is a religious invention anyway. 2mon ago from a Republican in North Decatur, GA.
They may get married but only receive "marriage" benefits if they have children. 1yr ago from a Republican in Littlefield, TX.
I couldn't care who marries whom, or what. All I ask is that if a gay couple get married, that they call it gay married to substantiate the difference. That way, if I say I am married, the person asking knows I am married to a woman. If I said I was gay married, they would know my partner was a male. That is all I would ask for. Fair enough. 1yr ago from a Republican in Waterbury, CT.
Marriage is a business of the state as more often than not it produces children who grow up to be consumers and tax payers at a minimum for state and local levels. If same sex couples want the tax breaks of marriage let them first adopt children as the tax breaks are to help with the costs of raising a family. 1yr ago from a Republican in Atlanta, GA.
Allow civil unions and allow churches and other business to refuse service based upon their belief system. 1yr ago from a Republican in Caledonia, MI.
I think the states should decide, but the definition of marriage should not be changed. 1yr ago from a Republican in Ceres, CA.
Individual decision, does not need a master to grant permission. 1yr ago from a Republican in Gardiner, ME.
They will burn in hell let them do what they want. its not my choice to decide for them but I don't agree with it. its only going to get worse and its more less a fad to see if you can get away with it and try to be socially excepted. 1yr ago from a Republican in Newry, SC.
We need to decide what marriage in the eyes of the state means before we can state. and we need to re evaluate the differences between civil unions and marriage, and if marriage is incompatible with same sex relationships, focus more on civil union reform then marriage redefinition. 1yr ago from a Republican in Phoenix, AZ.
Call it a partnershjp, and give them rights - but DON'T call it marriage!. 2yr ago from a Republican in West Bend, WI.
Thats a state issue and should be voted on by the people in that state. 2yr ago from a Republican in Providence Forge, VA.
It's not the role of government to define the term "marriage" for the people and their religions. There is no valid reason for the state to be involved in, or to regulate, adult consensual relationships that don't involve procreation. But it should have nothing to do with "banning" or refusing to allow anyone to define their relationship and the term they choose for it, however they, and their religion, defines it. 2yr ago from a Republican in Fort Worth, TX.
Take the word "marriage" away from the government. EVERYONE should have civil unions. That would allow for all the legal rights, obligations and privileges for "partners". Then if people wanted to have a spiritual union, they could find a church or religious body to perform that particular "rite". No one would be forced to perform this, couples would have to find the organizations that was willing. Additionally businesses shouldn't be forced to provide cakes, flowers etc. for these ceremonies either. The businesses would either survive or fail. 2yr ago from a Republican in Goshen, CA.
Marriage can be between any two people but unless they have the ability to procreate the species they get no tax breaks, churches can decide who they want to allow to be married in their facilities. 2yr ago from a Republican in Winter Haven, FL.
Clergy should not act as agents of the state in witnessing marriages. All unions gay and straight should be civil. If the couple wishes to have a religious ceremony subsequently then they can do so according to the rules of their house of worship. 2yr ago from a Republican in Putnam Valley, NY.
I do not believe in Gay Marriage, but I do not feel I have the right to make this decision for others. They will have to answer to God. 2yr ago from a Republican in Dover, DE.
I think that all marriages should be called marriages, but the churches could have sacremental marriages. 2yr ago from a Republican in Glenn Dale, MD.
Let them marry but deny benefits. 2yr ago from a Republican in Westerville, OH.
If two persons of the same sex desire to perform an abnormal, unnatural, perverted sexual activity between themselves, behind closed doors, so be it. They are no more than human deviates. The overwhelming majority of the human race are attracted to the opposite sex, as God directed and nature intended. There are thousands of perverts and deviates in our society, that are operating outside the norm. So long as they pose not danger or violate the safety and rights of others, let them be. 2yr ago from a Republican in St Augustine, FL.
Take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision. Replace marriage under the law with civil unions. Provide government benefits and rights through civil unions, only. People can choose to have a religious marriage, a civil union, or both. 2yr ago from a Republican in Normal, IL.
Marriage is one man one woman. Marriage between gays should be called a union. 2yr ago from a Republican in Milton, GA.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman. A civil union should be allowed for benefit purposes (insurances, retirements, inheritances, etc.). HOWEVER, the government has no right to force citizens to serve people who are engaging in a civil union, such as the baker that did not want to bake a cake for the gay couple in Colorado. The baker has a right to refuse service. 2yr ago from a Republican in Aransas Pass, TX.
Allow civil unions with the same rights as marriage, but don't redefine the word marriage. 2yr ago from a Republican in Ormond Beach, FL.
Let states decide through popular vote ONLY, but call them civil unions. Marriage already has a clear definition. 2yr ago from a Republican in Fort Myers, FL.
Yes, but not allowed to adopt. Children need a mother and a father. Look at the prison's and you'll see 90% of them were raised by single parents.... usually the mothers. 2yr ago from a Republican in Marietta, GA.
Don't have the government define marriage at all. Have a legal document for co-domestication, or whatever it ends up being called, but leave the definition of marriage as a personal definition. 2yr ago from a Republican in Layton, UT.
Separate religion and state. The only thing here that concerns the government is the role of a 'partner' for tax purposes. From a religious point of view, each religious organization should be free to set their own agenda. 2yr ago from a Republican in Walnut Creek, CA.
It should be legal, but religious bodies can be left to decide whether or not it is acceptable. 2yr ago from a Republican in White Plains, MD.
I don't believe in marriage. 2yr ago from a Republican in Washington, DC.
Take the government out of marriage and make it a religious decision, while allowing civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual union's benefits. 2yr ago from a Republican in North Little Rock, AR.
I have more important things in life to worry about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. 2yr ago from a Republican in Addison, IL.
I don't like it, or agree with it, but they're their own persons and can decide what they want to do for themselves. 2yr ago from a Republican in Eagle River, AK.
No, but at present, it is best left to the states to decide, and if not the states, then perhaps it might be best for local municipalities. Nevertheless, regardless of what is decided, the first amendment of the Constitution must be upheld, because to many who believe in a God who created this universe and is actively involved in the affairs of humanity, homosexuality is and always will be a moral issue. If this universe and all that be therein are the product of creation, then this Creator is also a moral and spiritual law giver as well, to whom all must answer to. He has already defined for us what marriage is and has already declared what forms of intimate behavior are acceptable in His eyes and what forms are not. This is the position of many people of faith including many Christians (especially Catholics and evangelicals), adherents to Orthodox forms of Judaism, and followers of the more fundamental sects of Islam. Gays are entitled to their choice of living and have the right to express their opinions, and those who would disagree with them are also entitled to their way of life and have as much right to express their views. But the first amendment rights of those who have reason to believe that homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of their Creator are not being respected. There are those within the gay community who seek to silence their detractors and force Christian owned businesses to take part in endorsing homosexuality (including Gay Marriage) against the dictates of their conscience, and already, there are judges in our courts who have no regard for the highest civic law of the land that they have sworn to protect, which has given us the liberties that we enjoy but have taken for granted. This should be a concern to all who value the freedom of speech and religion. To safeguard these liberties, we must not only hold our legislators and President accountable, but also our courts as well. We are badly in need of a "Freedom of Conscience" act which would prohibit any legislator from passing a law or ordinance, and prohibit any judge in our courts from declaring an order that might force an individual, religious institution, or business to go against the dictates of their faith or conscience. What I sincerely hope, for the sake of our liberties, that the "Duck Dynasty" controversy might ignite, is a discussion concerning the freedom of both speech and religion. It also should give every citizen cause to take time out of their busy schedule to read the Constitution and know what rights it guarantees them and how our government is truly supposed to operate. We also need in office and in our courts those who will be dedicated to upholding our Constitution and protecting those very liberties given to us in the Bill of Rights. There has been much support for Phil Robertsons' right to state his beliefs throughout the political and ideological spectrum. Why can't there be every bit as much support for the Christian Bakers' right to not bake a wedding cake for a Gay Marriage because he feels that it would be an act of endorsing something that he does not agree with or for others whose free speech and religious liberties may have been violated? When first amendment rights are violated in the name of equality and tolerance, that is when tolerance becomes intolerance and equality becomes a violation of civil rights. Unlike what some courts may declare, gay rights do not trump religious rights, but religious rights trump so-called gay rights. 2yr ago from a Republican in Cutten, CA.
The union should be allowed but not called marriage. It should carry all the benefits of marriage.. 2yr ago from a Republican in Kenosha, WI.
There are already legal provisions for any groups of people to form legal partnerships to share property etc. There is no need to create a right to marry for same sex couples. Marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman and any legislation by any government doesn't change that. 2yr ago from a Republican in Black River Falls, WI.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Allow for contractual arrangement between gays. 2yr ago from a Republican in Tacoma, WA.
NO. god made Adam and Eve for a reason. 2yr ago from a Republican in Spring Grove, PA.
Get rid of marriage all together. Civil unions for all couples, hetero or homo sexual. 2yr ago from a Republican in West Grove, PA.