Print
E-mail
Poll Finds Pennsylvanians Want A Vote On Marriage
By Bradley Vasoli, The Bulletin
A poll conducted on behalf of the Federalist Society, an organization supportive of understanding the constitution according to its original meaning, shows that Pennsylvanians don’t want judges altering marriage policy.
Survey results showed that 78 percent of state residents would like to be able to vote on the definition of marriage at the ballot box. Some legislators have tried to advance the public’s wish by offering an amendment to the state constitution. It has thus far not succeeded.
Thirty states have amended their constitutions to solidify the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some northeastern states enacted gay marriage by judicial fiat, triggering a movement to change state constitutional law across the nation to keep all licensed marriages heterosexual.
“‘We the people’ deserve a voice, and we call on Pennsylvania lawmakers to let the people vote!” Michael Geer, president of the Harrisburg-based nonprofit Pennsylvania Family Institute, said in a statement. “Activist judges and politicians should never be allowed to redefine marriage and impose a social experiment that knowingly and permanently deprives a child of a mom or a dad. A constitutional amendment is the only way in Pennsylvania to ensure the people — and not activist judges — can define marriage once and for all.”
The procedure for changing the constitution of Pennsylvania is a bit more arduous than procedures in other states. The Pennsylvania General Assembly must approve the amendment in two consecutive legislative sessions.
Judicial Activism Feared Beyond Gay Marriage Issue
The Polling Company, a pollster working with the Federalist Society, also found that residents of the Keystone state are wary of judicial overreach in other areas of state and federal law.
For instance, 77 percent of state residents said they agree that “judges should interpret and apply the law as it is written and not take into account their own viewpoints and experiences.” Only 20 percent said they agree that “judges should go beyond interpreting and applying the law and take into account their own viewpoints and experiences.”
Where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is concerned, voters seem to think personal worldview and background play a strong role in determining the outcome of cases. Fifty-seven percent of the poll’s respondents said they think that judges consider their own viewpoints and experience in rulings, while 21 percent said they believe differently. Twenty-two percent said they do not believe they’re sufficiently informed to judge the matter.
The overall assessment of Pennsylvania’s voters regarding the performance of the state Supreme Court isn’t terribly positive. Forty-five percent of voters said they view the court unfavorably. Only 22 percent said they view the court’s performance as “good.”
Bradley Vasoli can be reached at bvasoli@thebulletin.us
Survey results showed that 78 percent of state residents would like to be able to vote on the definition of marriage at the ballot box. Some legislators have tried to advance the public’s wish by offering an amendment to the state constitution. It has thus far not succeeded.
Thirty states have amended their constitutions to solidify the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some northeastern states enacted gay marriage by judicial fiat, triggering a movement to change state constitutional law across the nation to keep all licensed marriages heterosexual.
“‘We the people’ deserve a voice, and we call on Pennsylvania lawmakers to let the people vote!” Michael Geer, president of the Harrisburg-based nonprofit Pennsylvania Family Institute, said in a statement. “Activist judges and politicians should never be allowed to redefine marriage and impose a social experiment that knowingly and permanently deprives a child of a mom or a dad. A constitutional amendment is the only way in Pennsylvania to ensure the people — and not activist judges — can define marriage once and for all.”
The procedure for changing the constitution of Pennsylvania is a bit more arduous than procedures in other states. The Pennsylvania General Assembly must approve the amendment in two consecutive legislative sessions.
Judicial Activism Feared Beyond Gay Marriage Issue
The Polling Company, a pollster working with the Federalist Society, also found that residents of the Keystone state are wary of judicial overreach in other areas of state and federal law.
For instance, 77 percent of state residents said they agree that “judges should interpret and apply the law as it is written and not take into account their own viewpoints and experiences.” Only 20 percent said they agree that “judges should go beyond interpreting and applying the law and take into account their own viewpoints and experiences.”
Where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is concerned, voters seem to think personal worldview and background play a strong role in determining the outcome of cases. Fifty-seven percent of the poll’s respondents said they think that judges consider their own viewpoints and experience in rulings, while 21 percent said they believe differently. Twenty-two percent said they do not believe they’re sufficiently informed to judge the matter.
The overall assessment of Pennsylvania’s voters regarding the performance of the state Supreme Court isn’t terribly positive. Forty-five percent of voters said they view the court unfavorably. Only 22 percent said they view the court’s performance as “good.”
Bradley Vasoli can be reached at bvasoli@thebulletin.us
 |
 |
|
| Mothers Conflicted Over Work, Home | Reverse Discrimination in Football? |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
