The Coalition for Marriage was launched last week. And as many groups do to try and drum up some publicity announce themselves to the world, they commissioned an opinion poll of public attitudes to equal marriage.
Which is fair enough. But then, it appears, a thought struck them. The UK is, by and large, a tolerant nation, with the vast majority now accepting of gay and lesbian relationships being respected and recognised. So… how to pose an opinion poll question that could produce the result they wanted?
Thankfully, ComRes (a member of the British Polling Council) did them proud. You can read it here.
It is a brief masterclass in asking the right questions to produce the results you want.
First, the neutral question that comforts the respondent that the views they hold are eminently reasonable: ‘Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with [this] statement about the definition of marriage… It is possible to be tolerant of the rights of others and protective of traditional marriage at the same time.’ Unsurprisingly, 86% of the public agrees with this beguilingly innocuous true-ism.
And so are we lined up for the clincher, the killer question, so loaded with intrinsic bias it is almost admirably breathtaking in its audacity:
‘Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with [this] statement about the definition of marriage… Since gay and lesbian couples already have the same rights as married couples available to them under civil partnership, they should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone else.’
It’s a question which would have been only marginally less subtle if paraphrased as ‘Don’t you think those gays are getting a bit above themselves, eh?’
Given the brazen slant of the question, I was actually quite surprised to see that only 51% agreed with the statement, with 34% disagreeing.
I think the wording of this poll question tells us everything we need to know about the credibility of the Coalition for Marriage — and, perhaps more importantly, everything we need to know about the confidence they have in their own case that they should pray in aid such dubious tactics.
As Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone noted here:
Marriage is a right of passage for couples who want to show they are in a committed relationship, for people who want to show they have found love and wish to remain together until death do them part. Why should we deny it to people who happen to be gay or lesbian who wish to show that commitment and share it with their family, friends and everybody else? We should be proud of couples who love each other and a society that recognises their love as equal.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GUEST POST The state of our canals - and riverside pubs - today
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Suzanne Fletcher
Greg Hyde
David Raw
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
26 Comments
Whether a preson regards a question as baissed or not can depend on which answer that person wants other people to give!
This question is long and complicated, yes, but you have not explained the technicalities of how the bias is achieved. In what way does the question itself encourage the respondent to answer one way or the other? Nor have you given an alternative. I find that it’s actually quite hard to find one that is simple and not open to misinterpretation. For example
Should gay and lesibians be allowed to marry?
is open to misinterpretation – is it asking whether they can marry each other, or whether they should be alloowed to marry in a two-sex arrangement? Another could be:
Should gay and lesbian people be prevented from marrying each other?
Some might argue that this is biassed towards the No answer because “prevention” implies coercion which many people disagree with. Others niufht argue that people like the power of coercing others, so it’s biassed towards Yes!
While I don’t diasagree with what you are trying to achieve, your logic also starts with Lynne’s assertion about what marriage is, and there will be people whon disagree with that assertion – people who believe that marriage has religious significance for example. People will say that Lynne;s argument is biassed because she starts with an unproven assertion – somne would say a false premise.
Perhaps there ought to be some kind of science about how to ask unbiassed questions!
Perhaps I can clear this up for you Mr. Dean.
What Lynne says may well have a bias, and may well try to pursuade but that’s quite openly what she’s trying to do. Of course you can argue a premise here and there, that’s what debate it is.
A poll is conducted, when honest, to try and guage the viewpoints of those you are consulting. If you are loading the question you’re effectively trying to Duke the stats to suit yourself, something that is fundamentally (if you’ll excuse the pun) dishonest.
How are the questions biased? Well I beleive that’s covered above but perhaps I can zone it on it:
– The first question basically tells us nothing, as one can support gay marraige and still give either answer. However it is possible to interepret the answers differently, and one can’t help but suspect a press release from the “coalition” may come.
– The second question assumes that gay marriage will change the definition of marriage “for the rest of us” which in and of itself is a ludicrous assumption. Also it starts with a loaded statement that aids one side of the argument.
Thanks Guy, but I’m afraid your answer looks biassed! đ
Lynne has offerred a definition of marriage which many people would disagree with – a rite (or does she really mean “right”?) of passage rather than a religious vow. Consequently, “redefine marriage for everyone else” can be argued to be an accurate statement of what Lynne is proposing. If so – ie.if it is indeed an accurate descriptio of what she is proposing – then the question would appear to be fair and unbiassed!
Getting a science of asking unbiasse questions is a real hard puzzle. It’s like working out how to get a truthful answer from someone – so easy to ask in a way that make the respondent say what they think you want to hear. I look forward to your suggestions for some principles on how to do this.
Richard, the question is biased because it includes a short argument against Gay marriage built into it! It also isn’t asking the question they will present it as asking (whether you support gay marriage); for example I support gay marriage but I’d almost answer yes to that question (the second, the first I’d probably answer no to); I don’t think either part of the statement are true, homosexuals don’t have the same rights currently and aren’t trying to redefine marriage for everyone just for themselves (anyone else can still get married just as before), but if they did and they were then I would answer yes. As such it’s playing on the fact that people don’t have all the facts. There is at least significant debate as to whether the statements the question gives as a premise are true, but not everyone reading the question will know this, which will bias the answers given.
So to answer your question as to how we can define an unbaised question, we can’t formally define it (in fact the electoral commision spends ages working out the least biased question to ask when we have referendums), but for a start the question shouldn’t state as fact something which would be widely disputed, or that whilst true represents only one side of the argument. Ideally it should avoid stating facts as much as possible, so a question like; “Do you support the current governments proposals to legalise Homosexaul Marriage; Yes, No, Don’t Know.” The only facts in that are that the government has proposals to legalise Homosexual marriage, something fairly indisputable. Either of the questions you suggest are also better than the one they actually asked – although as you point out adding “each other” to the first might make it clearer.
And I think your suggestion that things look biased depending on the opinion your coming from holds some weight but not as much as you might think, in the same way that I think the question above is biased, I would not trust results that came from a survey that asked;
“Since the state currently discriminates against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry as heterosexual couples can, should legislation be passed to rectify this inequality?”
I think that’s a fairly good description of the current situation, but it’s undoubtedly just as biased a question as the one above, because it presents an argument for one side. It also states as fact that the current situation is discriminatory and unequal, something I believe but others might not (for the reasons listed in the question they did ask, regarding Civil Ceremonies).
As for Lynne’s comments, they are biased, but they aren’t trying to be unbiased, as opinion polls are (or at least should be).
On another note – is anyone else worried how many Lib Dem voters agreed with both questions (in fact in the first question we were the biggest agreers of the three main parties)! Admittedly we did better than both other parties in the second question.
Just to be clear, the Coalition for Marriage also contains a factual inaccuracy in that there are important distinctions between Marriage and Civil Partnerships. This is evidenced by this answer from Hansard, 2008:
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while Article 8 of the European convention provides mainly for privacy in the home and Article 14 provides for non-discrimination, Article 12 provides for a view of marriage between a man and woman and of family life that is basic to the existence and continuation of any society?
Lord Bach: My Lords, Article 12 speaks for itself. Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family according to the national laws governing the exercise of that right. When we passed the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, we made a distinction in it and did not call single-sex partnerships marriage. In many important ways, it was very similar, particularly in the many legal rights that it quite rightly gave to single-sex partnerships, but it did not call those partnerships marriage, and that remains the Governmentâs policy.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81023-0001.htm
The question isn’t just biased, it is factually incorrect.
1 Because lesbian and gay couples do not have the same rights available to then as married couples – they do not have the right to be legally married for a start.
2 Because no-one is proposing that lesbian and gay couples should be allowed to redefine marriage for ‘everyone else’. Firstly it is the Government that is making the proposal, not lesbian and gay couples, and secondly because the definition of marriage for ‘everyone else is not being changed, it is staying exactly as it is. In other words my sixteen and half year marriage to my wife is not affected in any way by the proposal.
A more objective question would be:
“Shouldlesbian and gay couples be allowed the same right to a civil marriage as heterosexual couples?”
Whilst I’m all in favour of allowing people to marry people of the same sex if they want to, I confess I’m a little confused on this point:
If we don’t insist that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, on what basis do we insist that it can only be between two people, regardless of sex? Why is discrimination against homosexual partnerships wrong, but discrimination against polygamous partnerships acceptable?
Malcolm,
Because marriage or civil partnership brings with it legal rights and tax benefits, such as the right to move capital itemms at no initial taxable value. Also what about the decision on medical treatment if one partner cannot make decisions and two other partners disagree?
I have no problem with polygamous relationships ,but legally recognising them is bordering on impossible.
Relevant to this topic, if you haven’t already heard the best speech you are likely to hear in 2012, see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH5egFXHJnQ
(It’s Republican Rep. Maureen Walsh speaking to the Washington State legislature in early February.)
Other than the ‘right to be legally married’ (@Liberal Neil), what rights do civil partnerships not confer which marriage does? I am personally not yet convinced that there is any legal discrimination taking place by not having gay marriages. The argument instead seems to be about the state recognising a couple as married, which must mean you think the normative role of the state is to assign value to relationships, which to a liberal is not necessarily that attractive an idea. We’re meant to be wary of the state deciding deepest personal values! If there is no disadvantage in law (in terms of benefits, pension rights, etc) then why do I need the state to tell me how valuable my personal relationships are?
Lynne does presuppose a view of marriage which some/many people would disagree with. The Coalition for Marriage seem quite clear that they see marriage as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” (from their website). They are objectively correct that that is the historic, legal definition in Britain whether we like it or not. So any departure from that (which gay marriage would be) is, ipso facto, a redefinition of marriage. That doesn’t of course mean it is wrong to redefine it, and perhaps it should always have been more open, but it is still redefining it.
If you want to maintain the view that people can define marriage how they want (a very respectable liberal position) – so therefore the Coalition for Marriage can define it as heterosexual, and others can include homosexual partnerships as marriages – then actually state recognition of gay marriage is the wrong step. If you genuinely want people to enjoy equal legal rights, but allow individuals and groups to define what is and is not a marriage, then you need to separate the two. So really, liberals should be calling for marriage as a legal institution to be abolished and all partnerships to be civil, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Religious groups, and any other social group or individuals, can therefore go their own way in defining when that civil partnership is a ‘marriage’ or not.
Two points:
1)Because the question relates to a current circumstance rather than a theoretical ideal then any reponse must necessarily express implicit bias.
2)Before it is possible to redefine a subject (here: marriage) it is necessary to agree what is the starting definition.
So, what Lynne expresses is marriage defined as the official recognition of a loving relationship which exists between two people – this can be summarised as a secular marriage. The alternate position is of marriage defined as the official recognition of a relationship designed for the purpose of raising children, according to a particular model – summarised as a religious marriage.
The policy problem is that groups (such as the Coalition for Marriage on the one side) have decided to use this conflict of definition as a wedge issue according to their political biases, and refuse to accept any possibility for overlap or accomodation with the other.
The logic of those on the religious wing therefore drives them to seek restrictions on adoption rights as justification for the maintaining difference with ‘gay’ marriage, while those on the secular wing seek ‘flat equality’ without accounting for the different needs that arise from any potential difference of purpose.
These arguments polarise opinion which then perpetuates a sense of inequality, oppression and social conflict – this may be either self-imposed or inflicted, or both.
Because the two sides see no way of reconciling themselves the law then becomes used as a tool for social engineering or for enforcing social division – both unhappy situations .
As I see it the true liberal response should be to find resolution by reunderstanding the role of the law to recognise each form of marriage as distinct and valuable (ie refine, not redefine).
As an ‘oo-err, missus’ aside, you only cause trouble by trying to force a square peg in a round hole…
@Ben The legal difference is that, in other countries that have both marriages and civil unions, a UK Civil Partnership is recognised as a civil union (and it has less legal rights).
I think that, ideally, civil partnerships for all, and marriage as a private institution which each group can define for themselves is right, But I’m also a practical politician, and it’s just not going to happen. Any time I mention it to anyone who isn’t a liberal, they accuse me of wanting to either abolish marriage or privatise marriage. With those two strong negative associations, it’s going to take a long time to bring people around to the idea. In the meantime, let’s stop discriminating against people on the basis of the sex of their partner, and let’s stop forcing trans people to get divorced when they transition.
So really, liberals should be calling for marriage as a legal institution to be abolished and all partnerships to be civil, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Religious groups, and any other social group or individuals, can therefore go their own way in defining when that civil partnership is a âmarriageâ or not.
I agree with this in every proviso except one: the name. “Marriage” as a concept and a word predates the religious use of the term. Religious groups have no right to it. So, by all means let there be one form of civil union – and it should be called “marriage”. If religious groups want to have their own, more exclusive form of partnership, then they can do so, and pick a different word for it. For Christians, the obvious choice would be “Holy Matrimony”.
Hi Richard. Yes my answer has my own personal bias, I don’t deny that but I am making my points. I’m glad you’ve challenge to me to write an unbiased question, and I have struggled with this for all of the time it takes me to type the following:
“Do you favour changing the law to allow two people of the same sex to have a marriage, rather than the current law that allows only civil unions between people of the same sex?” Answers either as “Yes” or “No.”
Sure, its not perfect perhaps, and might take a little tweaking from professional pollsters but in around half a minute I’ve scaled down the bias by merely just trying to get the answer to a question rather than the answer I want. My question doesn’t include anything that is in dispute, where the question above does.
By way of contrast would argue that the above question is more biased than the following:
“Owing to the fact we only called them ‘civil unions’ in the first place because a few religious nutjobs got their panties in a twist, do you favour adhering to the principle of equal rights and allowing single sex couples to get married?”
@Ben – Well if the state confers the right to be ‘married’ on some couples but not on others then the state is discrimninating between them.
Your wider point about the historic definition of marriage doesn’t stand. In fact the legal definition of marriage has changed fundamentally over time. The historic definition of marriage was that a wife was the property of her husband. That was changed. Historically a man could not be prosecuted for raping his wife. That was changed. Historically a wife would be left destitute if she left her husband. That was changed. The Coalition for marriage may well define marriage as âthe voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all othersâ, but that isn’t the current legal definition of marriage for a straight couple because the law allows them to divorce. So the legal definition of marraige has changed regularly.
The point remains, though, that allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry, legally, does not, in itself, affect existing marriages.
There are several points of fact I’m not seeing addressed here.
It is not accurate for the poll or commenters to state that same-sex couples are entitled to all the rights that couples who can marry are. I’ve heard stuff like pensions, inheritance and custody of children mentioned as examples, as well as the international recognition Richard Gadsden mentions).
It is also worth mentioning that if a person who wishes to transition is in a marriage or civil partnership, they must under the current system get divorced or have their civil partnership dissolved in order to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate and legally change their gender, at which point they can now have whichever of marriage or civil partnership is now approriate to the genders of them and their partner. This process incurs a lot of expense, hassle and emotional distress, which is completely unnecessary.
Also, not everyone is either heterosexual or homosexual: as a bisexual person I’m baffled that the rights in which I’m entitled to if I want to marry a woman are different than they’d be if I wanted to marry a man. This really highlights how ludicrous the “separate but equal” thing is not equal at all. What we’re talking about here is not special rights for those uppity gays, but equal rights for everybody.
Richard: “The legal difference is that, in other countries that have both marriages and civil unions, a UK Civil Partnership is recognised as a civil union (and it has less legal rights).”
But surely those other countries can simply choose not to recognise same-sex marriages if they wish to.
Guy: “âDo you favour changing the law to allow two people of the same sex to have a marriage, rather than the current law that allows only civil unions between people of the same sex?â
That sounds quite biased to me – the use of the word “only” implies that an answer of “No” would be tantamount to continuing to fob off gay people with something inferior.
There seems to be an obvious solution here. Why not simply rename civil partnerships as “civil marriages”? People seem more hung about choice of words here than any actual legal difference. As for “equal marriage”, that will NEVER be on the table, so long as we are prepared to allow authorised celebrants to discriminate against gay people.
Malcolm: You are right. There are plenty of other forms of discrimination in the marrige laws – discrimination against certain foreign nationals, people who wish to marry certain relatives (genetic or adopted), not to mention differences in marriage age between different parts of the UK.
@Peter Ellis
âMarriageâ as a concept and a word predates the religious use of the term”
I’m curious, how can you know that for certain? People have been worshipping gods (i.e. practicing religion) for a very long time. As there is so much we don’t know (pre-history) then how can you be 100% sure of the statement (although of course it does pre-date Christianity).
@Liberal Neil
“Your wider point about the historic definition of marriage doesnât stand.”
I think it does stand actually, the central tenet (in Christianity anyway) was that marriage was between one man and one woman, the things you mention were just legal consequences of the union.
“Well if the state confers the right to be âmarriedâ on some couples but not on others then the state is discrimninating between them.”
The ECHR doesn’t think so, it believes that the article 12 was only intended to cover marriage between men and women. This (I believe) means that a gay couple could not use a claim of discrimination to allow them to marry.
Actually, I think I agree with Oranjepan. Something needs to be refined as opposed to being redefined, otherwise you’ll take for ever to work out which is the least illiberal option.
There’s an art, if not a science, in asking unbiased questions and plenty of literature available for anyone who can be bothered to look. To my mind (and I studied the subject at postgrad level) the question is unnceessarily complicated and proabably biased. Guy Patching’s suggestion, although not perhaps perfect, is far preferable.
To the ppl arguing that there’s no difference between civil partnerships and marriage I’d say… then what are you so bothered about? If they are no different surely you can’t have any objection to the change? Unless of course you believe that ‘separate but equal’ is the way to go, just like they did in the southern United States before the civil rights movement.
âOwing to the fact we only called them âcivil unionsâ in the first place because a few religious nutjobs got their panties in a twist, do you favour adhering to the principle of equal rights and allowing single sex couples to get married?â
Indeed.
Liberal Neil
The historic definition of marriage was that a wife was the property of her husband.
The statements recorded as being made by Jesus on sexuality are few and gnomic – notably nothing at all on homosexuality, which one might suppose rather remiss if as some who call themselves “Christians” claim “God hates fags”. Nevertheless, what is recorded and in other early Christian writing is very much a rejection of marriage as a property relationship, and instead the establishing of it as “two become one body”. Now we are used to that notion it is perhaps difficult to see how radical this way of thinking would have been seen then. That marriage has tended to revert to being seen as a property relationship is more an aspect of how Christianity in practice was not able to throw off existing social mores – we can see this even more so in modern Islam.
If one wishes to challenge the idea amongst some Christians that “marriage” must be between a man and a woman, pone could investigate various metaphorical uses of the term in Christian tradition. A man or woman entering a religious order, for example, goes through a ceremony which has conscious echoes of a marriage ceremony.
Underneath, the problem would seem to be one of semantics. The argument about whether “civil partnership” confers the same rights as marriage seems to me to be a side issue because, unless I have got it wrong, the real issues is that those calling for gay marriage will not be satisfied with anything other than the actual word “marriage” being used – merely having exactly the same rights but not the same word is not enough. Countering this, the traditionalists would say that historically “marriage” has meant a relationship between a man and a woman, so even if you did have something between two people of the same sex which conferred exactly the same legal rights to call it a “marriage” would in effect meaning changing the meaning of a word by legislation.
I think this question about this question illustrates the weakness and unreliability of opinion polls. I approach them with scepticism and suspicion for this very reason. Usually I get part way through and then hit the “delete” button in disgust. I view any Government referendum in the same light – the ones we have had here on a North East Assembly, and elected Mayors v Council Leaders being good cases in point.
Moving away from the debate about the merits of this change (which I’m quite shocked liberals are having – surely letting people define their marriage as they want is more liberal, this is a step in that direction).
The above poll isn’t the most biased ever, mainly because this one is;
http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/556/premier-media-gay-marriage-poll.htm
Even before the fact that’s it’s often quoted without mentioning that it’s only of Church Going Christians, that it’s conducted by voluntary online polling (so only people with strong feelings answer, and the position in the church varies from don’t care to opposed), it then weights Anglican’s too lightly (or so I’m told, I must admit I don’t know on this one), and more importantly, before asking Q3 on voting intention, slips in Q2, a list of arguments against gay marriage.
Interestingly the second question (that’s never quoted because it was only put in to bias the third question) does show that 93% of respondants have no idea what they are talking about, saying they are concerned about the current legislation because; “ministers will have to conduct gay marriages against their conscience” which simply isn’t the proposal the Tories have. I also think that reason is possibly the only valid one against gay marriage (were it true) and surely will bias peoples responses purely because they don’t know what policy they are expressing approval or disaproval for (not that this is a sign of bias, just a sign of people need to research more before answering questions).
A minor point but one that clearly shows the difference between partnership and marriage; my civil partner will shortly be retiring from the NHS. Should he happen to die before me and I were to receive a dependent’s residual pension, the amount I wouldbe paid as a civil partner would be LESS than if we had been married. I am not remotely interested in the religious status (or indeed any other) but I am interested in the plain fact that, even within Government employment, there is blatant inequality. Anyone interested in the evidence is welcome to contact me.