SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
March, 07 2013, 10:16am EDT
Contact:
Angela Dallara
Communications Associate, Freedom to Marry
angela@freedomtomarry.org
646-430-3925
Meta-Analysis by Top Democratic and Republican Pollsters Shows Increased Support for Freedom to Marry, Isolated Opposition
NEW YORK
Freedom to Marry released a new report today summarizing a meta-analysis of national polling data and trends on the freedom to marry by Joel Benenson, a leading Democratic pollster, and Dr. Jan van Lohuizen, a top Republican pollster. Analyzing recent polling and exit polls from the 2012 election, the report shows that the well-documented majority support for the freedom to marry is broadening and diversifying while opposition continues to diminish and is isolated to a few narrow demographic groups.
In a press briefing this morning, Benenson and van Lohuizen joined Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry's president and founder, to discuss their findings.
Evan Wolfson, president and founder of Freedom to Marry, said: "In the wake of the groundbreaking 2012 marriage victories in the states and the rising bipartisan chorus of voices in favor of the freedom to marry, it's no longer surprising to see support for the freedom to marry continuing to grow. But what's striking is to see how isolated and dwindling the pockets of opposition are, and how strongly the center of political gravity has moved to empower those who want to get our country on the right side of history."
Joel Benenson, president of Benenson Strategy Group and chief pollster and senior strategist for President Barack Obama, said: "It's clear now that support for the freedom to marry has a broad base of support from a diverse cross-section of America. Strong majorities in almost all demographics support legalizing marriage for same-sex couples, while intense opposition remains confined to a few narrow demographic groups."
Dr. Jan van Lohuizen, president of Voter Consumer Research and chief pollster on the 2004 re-election campaign of President George W. Bush, said: "One of the most striking developments in recent years is the internal debate happening within the Republican Party, as these numbers show. With the under-30 supporters continuing to increase, it's clear that the party has to take that into account - the sooner, the better."
The full briefing can viewed here. Among the highlights:
- All major non-evangelical religious groups are ready to legalize marriage for same-sex couples: 58% support, while just 36% oppose.
- While Tea Party Republicans strongly oppose the freedom to marry, support is growing among the GOP's mainstream Republicans and, more dramatically, among young conservatives:
- Republicans who oppose the Tea Party: 47% support/52% oppose
- Republicans under age 30: 51% support/46% oppose
- Among voters under 65, there is widespread consensus across racial groups in favor of the freedom to marry. In fact, Latinos are the most supportive group, and African-American support has surpassed that of white voters:
- Whites under 65: 50% support/46% oppose
- African-Americans under 65: 51% support/40% oppose
- Hispanics under 65: 60% support/31% oppose
Benenson and van Lohuizen's report follows a joint May 2011 analysis of more than a decade of polling, which showed a dramatic shift in support for the freedom to marry.
Freedom to Marry is the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. Headed by Evan Wolfson, one of America's leading civil rights advocates and lawyers, Freedom to Marry brings new resources and a renewed context of urgency and opportunity to this social justice movement.
LATEST NEWS
Senate Report Highlights 'Betrayal of American Seniors' by Trump
"The president has actively harmed the well-being of seniors and broken his promises... to stop inflation, not touch Social Security, and leave Medicaid alone."
Mar 26, 2026
US Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand on Wednesday unveiled a report detailing how President Donald Trump's attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other programs are harming the very senior citizens whose strong support was so instrumental in his reelection.
The report—which was authored by the minority staff of the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging at the direction of Gillibrand (D-NY), its ranking member—states that Trump "was tasked with leading a nation that is rapidly aging and facing critical decisions about the policies and resources needed to support a sizable demographic change."
"The United States must decide how to ensure the independence of its seniors, how to support caregivers, and how to assist entire aging communities," the publication continues. "After one year in office, President Trump has failed at his obligations to America’s seniors. In fact, the president has actively harmed the well-being of seniors and broken his promises to them—such as his promises to stop inflation, not touch Social Security, and leave Medicaid alone."
Trump has FAILED at his obligations to America’s #seniors. The president has actively broken his promises to stop inflation, not to touch #SocialSecurity, and to "leave #Medicaid alone." READ the minority report of the Senate Committee on Aging HERE::: www.gillibrand.senate.gov/wp-content/u...
[image or embed]
— NCPSSM (@ncpssm.bsky.social) March 26, 2026 at 9:56 AM
Gillibrand said in a statement introducing the report that it "shows that instead of fighting for seniors, the president has attacked the very programs that help them stay afloat."
Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law last July, ushered in the biggest cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in US history.
Gillibrand's report "focuses on eight harms that represent the Trump administration’s failure to support seniors during his first year in office."
According to the publication, Trump:
- Broke his promise to tame inflation and expressed disdain for concerns about the cost of living;
- Used the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to attack the infrastructure supporting Social Security;
- Decimated Medicaid so he could slash taxes for wealthy Americans;
- Repealed key nursing home safety standards after being lobbied by wealthy nursing home executives;
- Disrupted services authorized by the Older Americans Act, including nutrition programs like Meals on Wheels;
- Created new red tape for seniors to access food assistance as another way to fund tax cuts for wealthy Americans;
- Proposed steep cuts for nonprofits that protect people with disabilities and seniors; and
- Attempted to dismantle the agency that guards Americans against financial crimes, including ones that target older adults.
"As a result, American seniors are sicker, poorer, and more vulnerable today than they were just a year ago," Gillbrand said. "This is devastating. I’ll keep fighting for legislation that counteracts the president’s efforts to undermine these programs so that our seniors can age with dignity and respect.”
Other Democratic members of Congress including Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.) and Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) and Reps. Melanie Stansbury (NM) and John Larson (NJ) pointed out how Trump administration policies—including those mentioned in this piece and others like the billion-dollar-per-day war on Iran—are harming seniors by spending money that could have been allocated for their benefit or, in the case of Stansbury, by noting GOP attacks on mail-in voting, upon which many seniors rely.
"Seniors today are having a very hard time getting their benefits.Why?Social Security has pushed out 7,700 workers since Trump took office."
[image or embed]
— Social Security Works (@socialsecurityworks.org) March 26, 2026 at 9:03 AM
"'America first' was bullshit," Duckworth said on Bluesky. "With the $200 billion Trump wants for Iran, we could fund a decade of free, universal preschool; provide seniors with Medicare dental, vision, and hearing coverage for three years; build 2 million+ affordable homes. He promised to end wars."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Delays Threatened 'Energy Plant Destruction' in Iran Until April 6
The US president faces pressure to fully retract his "deeply irresponsible threats of acts that would unleash catastrophic harm on millions of civilians."
Mar 26, 2026
President Donald Trump on Thursday further delayed any potential US strikes on Iranian power plants to April 6, after nearly a week of critics calling him a "maniacal tyrant" for threatening to commit even more war crimes while attacking Iran with Israel.
"As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement serve to represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time. Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
Trump initially said on the platform last Saturday night that "if Iran doesn't FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!"
Jan Vande Putte, a senior nuclear and radiation protection expert with Greenpeace International, said in a Monday statement that "bombing civilian electricity infrastructure is illegal under international law. The electricity grid is essential for hospitals, clean water, desalination, and the operation of nuclear facilities. Cutting it off puts millions of lives at risk."
"A blackout could force the Bushehr nuclear facility into depending completely on backup diesel generators, causing a heightened risk of overheating, which can lead to a Fukushima-like disaster," Vande Putte warned, pointing to the 2011 accident in Japan. "If Trump carries through with this reckless threat to knock out critical infrastructure, it could lead to cascading failures, from blackouts to nuclear danger far beyond national borders, with the potential to escalate into a wider regional crisis."
Amid mounting outrage on Monday, Trump instructed the Pentagon to "postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period, subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions."
Critics continued to sound the alarm. In a Tuesday statement, Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International's senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, called on Trump to retract his "dangerous" and "deeply irresponsible threats of acts that would unleash catastrophic harm on millions of civilians."
"By threatening such strikes, the USA is effectively indicating its willingness to plunge an entire country into darkness, and to potentially deprive its people of their human rights to life, water, food, healthcare, and adequate standard of living, and to subject them to severe pain and suffering," she warned.
"The decision to not proceed with such attacks must be based on the USA’s obligations under international humanitarian law to avoid civilian harm—not the outcome of political negotiations," the campaigner argued. "Going through with such attacks would cause devastating long-term consequences and severely undermine the international legal framework designed to protect civilians in wartime."
Guevara-Rosas also called on Iran to retract its threats to retaliate by striking power plants used by the US and Israel in Gulf states, as well as end all unlawful attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and against energy infrastructure and desalination facilities in the region.
"Intentionally attacking civilian infrastructure such as power plants is generally prohibited," she stressed. "Even in the limited cases that they qualify as military targets, a party still cannot attack power plants if this may cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Given that such power plants are essential for meeting the basic needs and livelihoods of tens of millions of civilians, attacking them would be disproportionate and thus unlawful under international humanitarian law, and could amount to a war crime."
As for the Trump administration's negotiations with Iran, the president's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, confirmed Thursday that Pakistani mediators sent the United States' 15-point framework to the Iranian government—which has not fallen over nearly a month of war, despite frequent assassinations.
Citing an Iranian senior political-security official, state-run Press TV reported Wednesday that Iran had rejected Trump's 15-point plan and had a list of five conditions for ending the conflict: a halt to assassinations, concrete mechanisms to ensure that the war is not reimposed, reparations for damages, an end to the war across all fronts and for all resistance groups involved throughout the region, and recognition of Iran sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
As The Associated Press reported Thursday:
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview on state TV that his government has not engaged in talks to end the war and does not plan to. He said the US had tried to send messages to Iran through other nations, "but that is not a conversation nor a negotiation."
Egypt is also acting as a go-between, according to Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, who said Thursday that his country sees a desire from both sides "for calm, for the exploration of negotiations."
Throughout the week, fears of Trump pursuing a ground invasion of Iran have also mounted, intenstifying pressure on congressional Democrats to force another vote on a war powers resolution intended to end the president's unauthorized Operation Epic Fury before the upcoming two-week recess.
"This may be the last opportunity for Congress to slam on the brakes before Trump launches a disastrous ground invasion of Iran," Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said on social media Thursday evening. "If Democratic leadership fails to force a vote and leaves town for two weeks, they will be complicit in any catastrophic escalation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders-Casar Proposal Takes On Billionaires Relocating Sports Teams for Corporate Welfare
"Professional sports teams should be owned and controlled by the fans who love them, not by the multibillionaire oligarchs," Sanders said.
Mar 26, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require owners of professional sports franchises who are considering relocating to give the communities in which they are located a chance to buy the teams first.
"The American people are sick and tired of billionaires threatening to move the sports teams they own to different states unless they get hundreds of millions in corporate welfare to build new stadiums,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement announcing the Home Team Act.
"In my view, professional sports teams should be owned and controlled by the fans who love them, not by the multibillionaire oligarchs who are getting even richer by charging outrageous prices and getting taxpayers to pick up their extravagant costs," he continued.
"You shouldn’t have to be wealthy to take your family to a football game," Sanders added. "You shouldn’t have to fear that a multibillionaire will move your favorite team to a different city if taxpayers refuse to subsidize it. The Home Team Act is a very modest piece of legislation that begins to address this problem. I am proud to support it.”
The Home Team Act is cosponsored by Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut—which lost the National Hockey League's Hartford Whalers to North Carolina in the 1990s—and five House Democrats.
If passed as written, the bill would:
- Require sports franchise owners to provide notice a year before moving the team to a new community, defined by crossing state lines or moving to a new Metropolitan Statistical Area;
- Give communities a chance to purchase a franchise during that year, including through the sort of successful community ownership model used by the National Football League's (NFL) Green Bay Packers; and
- Penalize noncompliant franchise owners.
“Sports in America should be about more than just making billionaire owners even richer," Casar said Thursday.
"Far too many Americans know the pain of losing a team, and far too many communities have had to fork over billions in subsidies just to keep an already profitable team home," he added. "Our bill is about creating a level playing field so leagues work for fans and taxpayers, not just owners.”
Sanders' office acknowledged that "team relocation has plagued communities across America for decades," from the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants moving respectively to Los Angeles and San Francisco in 1958 to the Oakland Athletics—who previously called Philadelphia and Kansas City home—relocating to Sacramento and, eventually, Las Vegas.
Oaklanders have arguably felt the heartbreak of losing their beloved pro sports franchises more than any other US city, having lost the As, the NFL's Raiders, and the Warriors of the National Basketball Association in a five-year span.
"Currently, the Chicago Bears are threatening to leave the city after more than 100 years in response to the state of Indiana offering massive subsidies," Sanders' office said of the storied NFL franchise known for its passionately loyal fan base. "The bill would prevent the Bears from being moved across state lines without being offered for sale."
In his youth, Sanders—who grew up during a time when Jewish players dominated racially segregated professional basketball—was known for his killer mid-range jump shot. As a senator, he has championed professional athletes, especially baseball players, during their collective bargaining struggles against oligarch owners.
Sanders still holds a grudge against the former owner of the beloved Brooklyn Dodgers of his youth who relocated the team to Los Angeles in 1958, when he was a teenager. In 2018, he posted an old Brooklyn adage that "the three worst people in modern history were Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley—but not necessarily in that order."
Serving in the House of Representatives at the time, Sanders even had a bit part in the 1999 comedy “My X-Girlfriend’s Wedding Reception," in which he played Manny Shevitz, a rabbi who argues that the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn was the "worst thing that ever happened."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular