The California Field Poll published in newspapers today [Sept. 18th] significantly understates support for Proposition 8, according to ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Manager Frank Schubert. Schubert’s comments are based on a historic review of Field Poll data and a new study that compared polling to actual results in more than two dozen states, including California, where the marriage issue has appeared on the ballot.

ProtectMarriage.com’s study, released today, shows that pollsters have under-estimated support for marriage measures by an average of seven percentage points in the 26 states studied. In some cases, polls have vastly under-stated support for traditional marriage by as much as 21 percentage points.

. . . .

In 2000, the Field Poll itself underestimated support for Proposition 22 by at least eight percentage points.  That initiative ended up winning with overwhelming voter support – capturing over 61% of the vote.

“Recent polls published by California media outlets claim that Proposition 8, restoring marriage in California as between a man and a woman, is trailing among voters. These polls, including the Field Poll released this week, suffer from the same historic problem that other polls on this subject around the country have had: they do not accurately reflect the true support for traditional marriage,” said Frank Schubert, who has twice been named the nation’s most valuable consultant by the American Association of Political Consultants.

“I can’t say for sure why polls almost always understate support for traditional marriage, but I believe it is because the media portrays same-sex marriage as being politically correct,” Schubert said.  “Supporters of traditional marriage don’t want pollsters to consider them intolerant, so they mask their true feelings on the issue. The result is that support for traditional marriage rises considerably when voters cast their ballots in the privacy of the voter booth. It is my opinion that the same thing will happen in California when voters cast ballots on Proposition 8.”

Earlier surveys from the L.A. Times poll and Survey USA poll have showed Proposition 8/ProtectMarriage.com with a slight lead, at 54% support.

“Our own internal surveys show that we are in a dead-heat on Proposition 8. The campaign manager for the No on 8 campaign has been quoted recently as saying the same thing. This race is very much up for grabs. It’s up to our campaign to convince voters of all the many reasons to restore marriage as between a man and a woman. I remain confident that we will do so,” Schubert said.

This picture book is an auspicious beginning to the Alyson Wonderland imprint, "which focuses on books for and about the children of lesbian and gay parents." That the venture is being undertaken is in itself commendable: consciousness-raising concerning gay issues can handily begin at an early age with the help of books such as Willhoite's. His text is suitably straightforward, and the format--single lines of copy beneath full-page illustrations--easily accessible to the intended audience. The story's narrator begins with his parents' divorce, and continues, "Now there's somebody new at Daddy's house." The new arrival is male; Frank and Daddy are seen pursuing their daily routine (eating, shaving, sleeping--even fighting), and on weekends the three interact easily on their various outings. "Mommy says Frank and Daddy are gay"--this new concept is explained to the child as "just one more kind of love." Willhoite's cartoony pictures work well here; the colorful characters with their contemporary wardrobes and familiar surroundings lend the tale a stabilizing air of warmth and familiarity. Ages 2-5.

There are some people who hesitate to get into this fight for freedom because it is controversial, or they are not sure if we are going to win. Such people have two blind spots.

First, they fail to realize that life's decisions should be based on principles-not on Gallup polls. There were men at Valley Forge who weren't sure how the Revolution would end, but they were in a much better position to save their own souls and their country than those timid men whose concern was deciding which side was going to win, or how to avoid controversy.

After all, the basic purpose of life is to prove ourselves-not to be with the majority when it is wrong. We must discharge responsibilities not only to our church, home, and profession, but also to our country. Otherwise we do not merit the full blessings of a kind Providence.

There are people today all over the world who in their own courageous and sometimes quiet ways are working for freedom. In many cases we will never know until the next life all they sacrificed for liberty. These patriots are receiving heaven's applause for the role they are playing, and in the long run that applause will be louder and longer than any they could receive in this world.

Which leads me to the second blind spot of those who hesitate to get into the fight. And that is their failure to realize that we will win in the long run, and for keeps, and that they pass up great blessings by not getting into the battle now when the odds are against us and the rewards are greatest.

The only questions, before the final victory, are, first, "What stand will each of us take in this struggle?" and second, "How much tragedy can be avoided by doing something now?"

Time is on the side of truth-and truth is eternal. Those who are fighting against freedom may feel confident now, but they are shortsighted.

This is still God's world. The forces of evil, working through some mortals, have made a mess of a good part of it. But it is still God's world. In due time, when each of us has had a chance to prove ourselves-including whether or not we are going to stand up for freedom-God will interject himself, and the final and eternal victory shall be for free agency. And then shall those complacent people on the sidelines, and those who took the wrong but temporarily popular course, lament their decisions. To the patriots I say this: Take that long eternal look. Stand up for freedom, no matter what the cost. Stand up and be counted. It can help to save your soul-and maybe your country.

There are no firm figures on how many gays from New York have come here to marry in the few weeks since the law took effect. But anecdotal evidence suggests the numbers are huge and likely to grow. Hotel rooms are full, flower shops are doing a brisk business, and everywhere, it seems, pedicabs adorned with "Just Married" signs are hauling gay couples down the town's main strip.

Justices of the peace, who perform most of the same-sex weddings, say they are booked solid, often racing directly from one ceremony to the next. Claire Watts, who performed the wedding for the four friends from Rochester, said she had presided over 30 gay weddings so far in August, and "the calls just keep coming."

Another justice of the peace, Rachel Peters, said: "I'm really busy. I have a full-time job, and this has become a full-time job." Peters, a police officer, said she had to take extra vacation days to perform all the same-sex weddings for out-of-staters, almost all New Yorkers.

Similarly, in our time, the inevitable, ultimate social consequences of letting everyone do their own thing in regard to marriage – and specifically in regard to legalizing same-sex marriage – will be at least as devastating. A weakening of the institution marriage is certain. As that institution is the foundation of social order, a weakening of social order is inevitable.

By redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, the meaning of marriage will be changed in ways that will loosen the already-impaired link between marriage and parenting; the intergenerational connections of marriage will become attenuated. The notion that marriage is a private matter will strengthen, as the public commitments and expectations of marriage erode. Sexual irresponsibility (especially infidelity and promiscuity within marriage) will grow and the moral expectations of the basic institution of society will fade as the sexual ethic of gay and lesbian lifestyles is embraced as marriage. Instability in marriages will increase as the pattern of transitory relationships of same-sex couples is included in the social understanding of what is marriage. Sexual segregation will increase and the historically gender-integrated public institution of marriage is redefined to include sexual apartheid couples. Instrumentalization of marriage partners will result from the inclusion of the gay lifestyle as an accepted form of the public institution of marriage. The transformative power of inclusion of gay and lesbian relationships in the public understanding of marriage will alter the institution of marriage as never before.