Democrat-leaning Public Policy Polling finds the Minnesota marriage amendment leading in the polls (PDF results here):
Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?
Yes - 48%
No - 44%
Not sure - 8%
We've found that those who answer "Not Sure" tend to vote to protect marriage when given the privacy of a voting booth.
On the leading question "Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?" Minnesotans respond:
Illegal - 47%
Legal - 43%
Not sure - 10%
Another interesting factoid: 34% of self-identified Democrats in Minnesota don't believe gay couples should be allowed to wed.
17 Comments
I wonder what the polling results would be if they posed the question like this:
"Do you think gender-segregation in marriage should be legal or illegal?"
Nobody is segregating "gender." Rights aren't given by "gender." They are given by personhood, and persons are made up of men/males and women/females.
There is no discrimination in the law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman, given that everybody is either a man/male, or a woman/female. EVERYBODY is included.
Looking good in MN. But, as they say, run like you're 5 points behind. Don't take anything for granted. For me that means continuing to shake the piggy-bank to help support NOM and MN for Marriage.
Lookin' real good in MN.
These numbers are far far far better than we were looking at in California, before we won Prop 8.
Looks like MN and NC will be the 32nd and 33rd straight wins for marriage.........
when the people are consulted.
Mr. Incredible, I think you and mominvermon are on the same page...
I believe that the legal rights of a minority group should not be put to a vote. They should ask the question that way: "Do you believe that gays and lesbians should have fewer legal rights than straight people?"
There is no orientation test for marriage. You are allowed to marry regardless of orientation. Minnesota already has marriage equality and full civil rights. What it doesn't have is marriage redefinition, which would legally redefine everyone's marriage.
Traditional marriage integrates the sexes in a way that is beneficial to society at large by creating an institution designed for producing children from within the bonds of that union. "SSM" segregates the sexes and cannot lead to procreative sex within the bonds of that union. Such single gender unions are properly addressed by private contract law. Their union can be whatever the parties agree upon in a private contract.
James2,I believe that claiming "rights of a minority group" are at issue when the "minority" is defined by desire to engage in a behavior the general welfare requires be discouraged should disqualify anyone from public office.Marriage exists to reward the formation of male-female relationships.Those not interested are therefore not qualified.
They are not a verified, certified minority group any more than heterosexuals are a verified, certified majority group. Neither deserve special Rights, and the Constitution doesn't give anybody Rights based on heterosexuality, nor chosen homosexuality. Persons get Rights, and, if one is a man, or a woman, the law that defines "marriage" already coveres them.
Votes also always tend to do better than polls.
==Mr. Incredible, I think you and mominvermon are on the same page...==
NnnnK. That's coo-uhl. Thanks.
Across the country more Democrats and Independents, together, have voted in favor of state marriage measures than have Republicans, in absolute numbers. Likewise, more liberals and moderates, combined, have voted in favor.
Opinion surveys underestimate support for marriage and overestimate opposition (ie support for SSM) by decisive margins. Electon campaigns do make a big difference.
Even proSSM pollsters recognize this pattern and struggle to refine their methods to more accrately forecast election results on these measures.
At one point in CA the reports were that opposition to the marriage amendment had a ten point lead. That proved ullusory. Happened in just about every state that has held a vote.
Obviously straight only marriage laws were made back when being gay was uncool, and there were few gay couples who wanted to marry. Now that we understand that it's perfectly normal to be gay, why not change the law so that both straight AND gay couples can benefit?!
James2,the increasing popularity of the absurd delusion that one does no wrong in indulging same-sex sexual attraction is something to reverse,not accommodate.
Ouch, NOM! Over half of the respondants didn't answer the way you wanted and you still try to spin the results in your favor.
You better do some more Gathering Storm fear-mongering ads and get the ball rolling 'cause the scales are barely tipped in your favor.
And I bet not a single Democrat of that 34% is under 50:
Everybody (of legal age) already has the right to marry. But your "orientation" can't redefine marriage. A pedophile may be attracted to kids, but that doesn't give him the right to marry one. A rapist doesn't have special rights to rape, nor a kleptomaniac to marry his wallet.
The right to marry does not include the right to redefine marriage. If you want to marry, then put your pathologies aside and step up to the plate: find somebody of the opposite gender. And by the way, after you're married a while, your eyes may start to wander. What do you call THAT? A new orientation?
Americans are tired of leftist class warfare arguments, including this one: gays and lesbians are the victims and "men and women" are the oppressors. Since gays and lesbians self-define their own"minority" victim status, the whole civil rights argument is a semantic sham. Stop kidding yourselves; the general public does not buy the false dichotomies of the LGBT lobby when they self-define as either men OR women only, and then call other men and women "bigots".