Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
Editor’s note:This is another in a series of monthly “WND/WENZEL POLLS” conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
A new WND/Wenzel Poll indicates that an overwhelming 70 percent of Americans want marriage limited to one man and one woman, but a subset, tiny though it may be, already is endorsing polygamy and bestiality.
The prospect that relationships abhorred both biblically and traditionally will be sanctioned already has been forecast by one of the California Supreme Court justices in 2008 who dissented from the majority opinion that “found” in the state constitution a provision for same-sex “marriage.”
The decision later was rejected by voters through Proposition 8, which enshrined traditional marriage in the state constitution. The ballot measure was ruled unconstitutional in August, however, by homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker, who decided that the age in which gender mattered to marriage was over.
The new results come in a WND/Wenzel Poll conducted Sept. 13-14 with an automated technology calling a random sampling of listed telephone numbers nationwide. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.65 percentage points.
In his dissenting opinion in the 2008 ruling, California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter warned of the “legal jujitsu” required to establish same-sex “marriage” by court order.
“The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,” Baxter warned. “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?” Baxter wrote.
On the issue of whether accepting same-sex “marriage” would result in demands of other types of unions, “such as polygamy, incestuous couples and relationships between humans and animals, as has been suggested by some legal scholars, 55 percent of respondents said ‘no,’” the analysis said. “Another 29 percent said they doubted such a development but conceded that it could possibly happen, while 13 percent said they believed such things could occur. While 69 percent of Democrats said they did not believe such a thing could happen, 39 percent of Republicans said they think it could.”
Fritz Wenzel, chief of Wenzel Strategies which conducts the WND poll, said there is a huge disparity between the political parties on how people feel about the question of marriage.
“While 92 percent of Republicans believe only in a one man-one woman marriage, just 52 percent of Democrats agreed,” he reported. “Among Democrats, 44 percent said they believed a marriage could be any two people, regardless of gender.
“Independents were about halfway in-between Republicans and Democrats on the question, as 66 percent said they felt marriage should be just between one man and one woman,” he said.
It was among those categories that the polygamous or polyamorous relationships – even bestiality – started appearing.
Among Democrats, 2.2 percent said “marriage” should be “many people-any gender.” One-half of one percent of independents agreed. And a definition of marriage that would be “not limited to humans alone” was supported by 0.2 percent of Democrats and the same percentage of Independents.
The poll revealed that men and women felt about the same on the definition of marriage, with 71 percent of men and 69 percent of women saying marriage should be between just one man and one woman.
“However, younger respondents were much more likely to accept the idea of same-sex marriages – 45 percent said they believed in a one man-one woman union, but 39 percent said they felt same-sex marriages were acceptable. Interestingly, 16 percent of those under age 30 said they think marriage as an institution should be scrapped altogether,” the Wenzel analysis of poll results said.
“Mirroring Wenzel Strategies polling conducted for WorldNetDaily.com last month, just 35 percent said they thought the federal judge’s decision to vacate the California state constitutional amendment – which was passed by voters – was a courageous stroke of judicial magic. Another 34 percent said they believed it was the height of judicial arrogance, with the other third either somewhere in-between or undecided on the question,” the Wenzel analysis said.
“On the question of whether respondents believed the nation would eventually come to accept same-sex marriage, two-thirds, or 63 percent said they did not believe it would ever be accepted. Another 14 percent said they thought same-sex marriages would be accepted, but that it would take a long time, perhaps decades, to occur. Twenty-one percent said they did believe that same-sex marriage would be accepted, and probably in the short-term,” the analysis said.
The poll showed that the “traditional institution of marriage, if left in the hands of average American citizens, is safe for now,” the analysis said.
In fact, of the votes that already have been held in 60 percent of the states, every result when voters have chosen has been to define marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
“But the undercurrent of acceptance for alternative lifestyles shows the door is open and it may be just a matter of time before significant cultural changes sweep across the country,” the pollster said.
The Alliance Defense Fund has noted some of Judge Walker’s far-reaching conclusions in his court decision, now on appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:
“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
“Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”
“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.”
“The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.”
“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
“Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.”
“This is a classic example of radical individualism and judicial activism. Judge Walker obviously has not learned the lesson of 2008, when the California Supreme Court refused to stay its decision on marriage. That decision was reversed in short order, but it caused a huge disruption,” said chief Mathew Staver.
The alert asks supporters to contact their members of Congress and demand his removal.
“What you have here is a federal judge using the power of his position to legitimize what is sexually aberrant behavior,” Bryan Fischer, an analyst for the organization, told WND. “He’s trampling on the will of 7 million voters in California. It’s just a gross breach of his judicial responsibility.
“We think of it as an expression of judicial tyranny, judicial activism on steroids,” he said.