Second New Poll Says Marriage Amendment Could Fail

Issue comes before voters in November.

A new set of survey results released Wednesday morning suggests support for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage rests on a knife's edge. 

The poll, by Public Policy Polling (PPP), said 48 percent of Minnesotans support the amendment and 47 percent oppose it, with less than sixty days to go until the November election.

State law already bans same-sex marriage.

"In January we found 48/44 support for the ban, while in June we found 49/43 opposition," said a statement from the pollsters, published on PPP's website. "It looks like a toss up."

Opinions broke down by age group thus:

Women (52/41), Democrats (78/16), and voters under 45 (50/45) all oppose the ban. Men (55/41), Republicans (80/17), independents (51/42), and seniors (53/40) all support it in greater numbers though.

For their poll, PPP surveyed 824 likely Minnesota voters, on Sept. 10 and 11. The poll's margin of error was given as plus or minus 3.4 percent.

A , said that 50 percent of Minnesotans support the amendment and 43 percent oppose it, with eight percent remaining undecided.

Debbie September 13, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Well sorry but you will just have to deal with it. Every law discriminates in some way, sir. Most Americans believe marriage should be between one man and one woman and that's the way it is. It isn't going to change. Move on to another issue.
Debbie September 13, 2012 at 06:01 PM
Jennifer, all people CAN get married. They just have to follow the guidelines for marriage that our society has established long ago. Right now marriage has one definition...its between a male and female. If you want to swing open the door and make marriage mean nothing by allowing any combination of sexual partners to marry, then that just destroys marriage and leaves it with no meaning or purpose anymore. This has nothing to do with "fairness." The law is already fair. What is has to do with is a small segment of the population trying to trash our values and most important social institutions, but the voters won't let it happen.
Bauer September 13, 2012 at 06:02 PM
Debbie: Pssst....your intelligence is showing. Did you move from MA to MN so you could live somewhere more conservative? If so....fail. You might want to try somewhere further south. Alabama might be the place for you.
Emily B September 13, 2012 at 06:05 PM
Are YOU joking Debbie? The WHOLE POINT of marriage for hundreds of years was SOLELY about money!! Marriage was a way of passing on wealth and securing goods.
Emily B September 13, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Debbie, you can say that a slight majority of Americans believe this, but please stop saying "most" because clearly 43-48% is NOT most. It may end up being a small majority, sure, but absolutely not most. Also, "it isn't going to change." Good luck on that. I look forward to the day when you are on the opposite side of "most" because it sure will change.
Joshua September 13, 2012 at 06:39 PM
Deal with it? If the law passes, then I will. If it fails, will *you* deal with it? Probably not. The perception of same sex marriage is probably going change over time, just as every other discriminatory, popular belief has in our democratic history. I'm sorry, but the state of Minnesota will most likely not be destroyed by fire and brimstone if the ammendment fails.
STW September 13, 2012 at 07:05 PM
Debbie, keep your definition, that is fine. But let the government recognize civil unions for all, and then get out of the business of defining words. That way you can define marriage any way you want. Separate Church and State. Today you might like the way government helps your cause, tomorrow you may not.
Mother September 13, 2012 at 08:01 PM
Debbie, Most of us are unaware of what happened in Massachusetts. Could you help us to understand what is most upsetting? You seem to be a person of conviction because you have experienced something that we have not and some of us would be interested in hearing what you experienced. Thanks!
Angela Norby September 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM
About.com This is a site that will explain the ballot, if there are any questions. Reading the explanation on the amendment change it states that if you leave the vote blank it will be counted as a NO vote. Meaning you agree for the amendment change. If you vote YES, the amendment remains between a man and woman. Voting is important.
Heyitsme September 14, 2012 at 01:10 AM
824 people polled...5.3 plus million live in Minnesota. Not a huge cross section of the public.
Emily B September 14, 2012 at 04:10 AM
Angela, I'm not sure you are explaining this correctly. No one is voting to change the amendment. We vote on the amendment as written. That said, we are voting to change the CONSTITUTION. If you leave it blank, it will be counted as a NO vote stating you DO NOT wish to have the Constitution changed to say that marriage is defined as one man and one woman. This is already the law, but supporters want to make it part of our Constitution. So, if enough people vote no or leave it blank, and the amendment fails, life stays EXACTLY how it is today. Not a single thing changes. Gay marriage will not be legal. Gay and lesbian couples will gain nothing in terms of benefits.
DonaldDoo September 14, 2012 at 04:32 AM
Who relevant to this conversation has minority status?
Luke September 14, 2012 at 02:59 PM
Actually, PPP has a high REI index rating, with its polls being very close to the statistical average. They're generally within 1% of the actual and their liberal bias is within the range of error. Nate Silver does an excellent job of explaining how polls are rated, so you should look it up. PPP is probably the most accurate poll we'll get until very close to the election and even then, there aren't many better polls. PPP is better ranked than Gallup and far more accurate than Survey USA. Of course, polls could be better. Pollsters would love to have a sample size of hundreds of thousands and give weight perfectly, but that isn't possible. If you think the poll is worthless, pick the phone next time and help us be more accurate.
Luke September 14, 2012 at 03:07 PM
At this stage in the election, this poll is the best we'll get. Minnesota, while getting closer and closer to being a swing state, is not considered "in play" this election and so pollsters look elsewhere. We will get better polls later, but for now 824 people weighted to match the voting demographics allows an accurate poll. The small sample does result in a high range of error, but little can be done about that. If you want better polls, answer your phone more. Lack of people answering the phone is the number one problem with polling.
STW September 14, 2012 at 05:36 PM
I never give a answer to a a pollster. If you want to know the results, check it on the day after the election. Anything before, doesn't help.
Susan September 14, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Debbie wrote: "What is has to do with is a small segment of the population trying to trash our values and most important social institutions." Well, since over forty percent of the population appears to be against the amendment, I don't believe it is a "small segment of the population". How in the world will keeping our Constitution the way it is "trash our values and most important social institutions"? Let's just say gay marriage does eventually become legal, I again ask you, how would this trash "your" values? How would it change "your" marriage?
Luke September 14, 2012 at 09:59 PM
I don't what side you're on for this issue, but both want and need polling data. It is of vital importance in deciding what to focus on, where to have ads and countless other things. For example, during a presidential election, candidates don't pick speeches, events and messages at random. They're specifically tailored to win necessary states. The reason we don't see much action in Minnesota is because we don't poll as a swing state. Maybe you don't care about answering the polls, but for a second believe they aren't important.
Orono September 18, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Emily, are you having a hard time understanding "most"??? If 48% favor it, 43% dont favor it and 9% have no opinion, MOST favor it. In your desire to spew at the "haters" you confused MOST with Majority
Orono September 18, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Yes, Libertarians are opposed to change HOWEVER, we are more opposed to activist judges changing laws to suit their agenda. The amendment is mostly to prevent liberal judges from changing laws to better suit their perception of how the world should be. Even after voting gay marriage down in California, judges are still changing laws however they desire. Libertarians dont care either way if there is gay marriage or not, but they are 100% judges making it up as the decide to go along.
Emily B September 18, 2012 at 07:06 PM
So what if legislators want to change the law based on the changing needs and wants of their constituents? Judges don't even need to get involved. And by the way, there are activist judges on both sides. How about the conservative judges who want to use their decisions to change abortion laws? How is that any different? Advocates of the amendment, in my understanding, don't want ANYONE to change the law in the future, so they want their version of "right/wrong" embedded in the Constitution.
Orono September 18, 2012 at 08:24 PM
There are definitely conservative activists but not nearly as many. Except, I am unfamiliar with any state that has banned abortion all together. The real answer is with the government coming up with a legal "civil union". Something that allows 2 people to legally unite and become legally responsible for each other. I have no idea how this would work but if you leave the marriage out of it all together and allow 2 people to unite, it could save a lot of problems. Even brothers or sisters could unite. Then all the legal responsibilities and tax issues could be resolved. Of course the gays would lose the "marriage" word but they can still be legally brought together. If the gays are fighting only for the "marriage" word, then that is a different arugment. To me, if a gay NEEDS to have the marriage word in his civil uniting with a loved one, then they are just looking to argue and are not truly looking for a solution. I would compare that argument to a boy demanding he get to play girls hockey. Or a girl demanding she get to join the boyscouts. As always, it is just my opinion.
Emily B September 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM
So if the government was ONLY involved with civil unions, then does that mean all legally joined people (straight included) would just have a civil union? And religious institutions (or other non-gov't groups) would be responsible for "marriages"? If that is what you argue for, then we are on the same page. If gov’t is going to provide benefits through the vehicle of marriage and not all couples can get those, that is not acceptable. However, if a civil union is what imparted those benefits and marriage was left to the private/personal/religious realm, fine by me. Right now, a civil union doesn’t provide all the benefits, so we have a “separate but unequal” situation. Problem is, seems to me that amendment supporters only want to "protect" the word "marriage" which they think is some sacred thing they must fight to the death for, nevermind that marriage was originally created primarily as a way of transferring wealth, long before Christians ever came along. Forget that many care little about so many other things dealing with creating healthy marriages and families. They just want to protect a WORD. Seems like they should be going to the Patents and Trademarks folks instead of the Constitution. As for abortion, you're right, no state has banned it, because of Roe v Wade, but PLENTY of politicians push for Supreme Court Judges who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, the law of the land for several decades now, so they can get their way at a state or lower court level.
Gramps Pupany September 19, 2012 at 03:41 PM
It's more GOP hate-mongering. The corruption starts at Romney & Ryan with lies about who they will serve and who they won't. Lies of "omission", such as hidden budget cuts, are equal to lies of "commission", like telling the rich one thing and the rest of America another. They're up to his necks in The Lying Game. What they say is all part of the larger GOP strategy. Believe me, Ryan "takes direction" in order to "stay on" the Republican message. He must "sing the GOP song" to be a GOP candidate. All across the nation, millionaires are backing these liars. They want full control in order to create the final divide between rich and poor. "Us and them". Their misjudgment? A lot of that 47% they despise is part of working America; students working their way through college, single moms restarting their lives with their first job since high school and truly poor mothers, working while the kids are at school, just to buy fuel oil for this winter and food for the day. These are proud Americans. Romney has just stolen their pride, their will power and more...their dignity. Men like Romney, Ryan and Republican candidates for Congress have no place in the seats of government (at any level) making decisions for "all Americans". They only have experience with the "jet set" and their "country club" members. That's okay, if you're running for Prom Queen, but the responsibilities here are far reaching and their vision does not include all Americans, as we've just found out.
Jim September 21, 2012 at 08:10 PM
Each hateful comment is a stab in the heart of other human beings. How many gays does God have to make before we figure out that love is love.
Just Curious September 25, 2012 at 01:19 PM
Speaking of hateful is it appropriate the vote "no" team is damaging property and signs of those who are expressing their right to have an opinion? The real intimidation in this election is definetelly from the left.....
Luke September 25, 2012 at 01:28 PM
Seeing that my "Vote No" sign has been stolen twice now along with every other sign on the block and that MN United organizers have confirmed that such vandalism is very common this year, I don't think we should be pointing fingers. I have no idea of what property damage you're speaking of. Neither campaign is directing the damaging of signs and both condemn it. As for intimidation, I volunteer regularly with MN United. I don't intimidate voters, I remain polite at all times and I help everyone understand the amendment, even if it means they will vote yes. But I have received a death threat over the phone, am often told I will burn in hell and had people attempt to physically intimidate me at the State Fair. Its hard to keep calling after someone tells you their going to come and kill me and my family, but it only gives me another reason to make sure this fails. The side who wants me dead cannot be the right side.
MJ September 25, 2012 at 02:50 PM
Our "Vote No" yard sign was pulled up over night, but they were unsuccessful at actually taking it. Unfortunately, I am not surprised, but it still saddens me that as Americans we cannot express our views without harassment.
Michele Olson September 25, 2012 at 03:00 PM
I am under the impression that removing election signs from lawns is a felony; am I incorrect in this? In removing a sign, the vandal is attempting that individual's right to free expression and betrays a contempt for our Constitution.
Just Curious September 26, 2012 at 01:15 AM
So we all agree that we are free to express our opinions. Free from intimidation tactics .
Jmc October 14, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Debbie I think you have it all wrong I was raised by two catholic parents and was raised to understand that you got married because you were in love and want to spend your lives together! So I also feel everyone has a right to be married and be happy! No one has a right to judge anyone for who they love !


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something