Poll: Minnesotans Divided on Gay Marriage Ban

With the stage firmly set for a 2012 referendum on whether to enact a constitutional amendment codifying Minnesota’s existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage, a new poll reveals that Minnesotans are almost evenly split on whether to enact the ban, though respondents do report favoring legal rights for same-sex couples.

The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found that 46% of people favor the amendment while 47% are opposed and 7% are undecided. Similarly, 45% of people said that gay marriage should be illegal while 46% said it should be legal, and 9% remain undecided.

However, 72% of respondents say that they favor legal recognition for gay couples, with 38% of those favoring marriage and 34% favoring civil unions. Only 26% said their should be no recognition at all, while 2% said they didn’t know.

From On Top Magazine:

“Voters in the state are about as evenly divided as they could be on gay marriage,” Tom Jensen said in a post announcing the poll’s results. “As usual the generational divide on the issue is staggering — seniors support a ban by a 57/34 margin while every other age group opposes it.”


“There aren’t a lot of policy issues I would say this about but public opinion on gay marriage is shifting so quickly that it wouldn’t surprise me if opposition to this amendment grows by 5 or 6 points in the 17 months between now and next November’s election.”


A SurveyUSA poll released earlier in the week and commissioned by the Minneapolis-St. Paul ABC affiliate KSTP found 51 percent of respondents in favor of the amendment, 40 percent opposed, and 8 percent uncertain.


“This is a significant change from our last poll in March when 62% favored the amendment banning gay marriage and 33% were opposed,” the polling group said in announcing its findings.

Supporters of the amendment have said that polls are being rigged to favor same-sex marriage. They have yet to offer proof for this accusation.


You can find a link to the poll results over at On Top Magazine here.


Photo used under the MorgueFile user license, with thanks to mensatic.


Ira L.
Ellie L6 years ago

Well said, AJA.

Past Member 6 years ago

Let's try it this way: those who cite their "religious beliefs" as a basis for denying marriage equality - and wail that their "religious freedom" would be denied them if marriage equality was legalized - do not give a damn about religious freedom - except for themselves (the exact same thing also applies to "liberty" and "personal freedom").

In fact, no religious tradition, church, synagog or mosque would be required, much less compelled, to perform, or even sanction, a same-gender marriage.

However, by proscribing marriage equality, the many religious traditions, churches and synagogs that DO support marriage equality - and would perform marriages for ALL couples were civil law to permit them - are themselves being denied THEIR religious freedom, along with their millions of congregants.

This IS a black-and-white issue: either there is religious freedom for ALL Americans or there is NO religious freedom in America.

Those who would find it impossible to live in a society that embraces true religious freedom (which also means freedom FROM religion) should find a theocracy to their liking - and move there without delay.

Jennifer B.
Jennifer M6 years ago

I love that people say gay couples will "ruin the sanctity of marriage". Ha, what a joke!! Divorce rates are absolutely ridiculous. Marriage doesn't mean anything to a lot of straight people. And I have yet to hear just one good reason why gay people shouldn't be equal. I know I'll never hear it either, because it doesn't exist!! We are all HUMAN, that's all that should matter.

Roseann S.

let make the one vote count and stop the divide

Megan R.
Megan R6 years ago

This is a tactic to get the Republican Christians out to vote. It also brings a lot of attention to MN from Nom and other anti-gay organizations.
We are not a Christian nation. We do not deserve to be denied our rights because of people's religious beliefs.

Anda Z.
I. Anda Zevedei6 years ago

if there is and there is separation of church and state: the state should allow any 2 people marry as a human right...and the church has the power to bless that marriage or not....I think many/most won't care abt the church position on this anyway so...

Past Member 6 years ago

Bart V. makes some excellent points (and congratulations to your nephew), but from studies involving areas in the U.S. where lithium levels in the drinking water are naturally high (such as certain parts of Texas), while overall rates of completed suicides may be lower, there is no evidence of a higher level of rationality (or even cognition). Perhaps a naturally-occurring benzodiazepine might prove more useful; then they could return to those 'don't worry; be happy' days of yesteryear, when one-liners (and presidential speeches) came from old movie scripts.

William Y.
William Y6 years ago

I would still like to see one legitimate reason for banning gay marriage. As far as I can see, there is none.

Bart V.
Bart V.6 years ago

Yes, Minnesota used to have a more progressive mindset & identity. I cannot imagine what happened, but I know that ordinary conservatives showing up at Republican affairs have been asked when they became born-again. Once again, I heard on TV today a possible candidate for whatever declaring that marriage must be protected. From what? A nephew of mine is getting married next month, ......to a .....dare I say it? A beautiful young woman. We are in Canada. I hope he's not arrested.... :-) I wonder if it would be possible &/or legal, to add anti-psychotic medication to the drinking water of regions of the country that adhere to ideas of bigotry? Arterial blood gases should be done regularly also, as it is evident that there is a serious oxygen deficit impacting entire states. Finally, it wouldn't be a bad idea to increase the levels of fiber in their diets.

Suzen R.
Suzen R6 years ago

Who would be against love/family and partnerships?