New Poll Shows Support, Opposition for Marriage Amendment Tied

Poll conducted from Oct. 23 to Oct. 25

According to a new poll commissioned by the Star-Tribune, support and opposition to the marriage amendment is essentially tied.

The amendment would write a prohibition on legal recognition of same-sex marriages into the state constitution, reflecting current law.

Some 48 percent of a poll of 800 likely Minnesota voters told the Minnesota Poll's questioners that they would be voting to pass the amendment. About 47 percent said they opposed the measure, and 5 percent said they were still undecided. Respondents were reached using both cell phones and landlines. The poll's margin of error was 3.5 percent, plus or minus.

September's Minnesota Poll also showed a deadlock between the two sides. As the October Minnesota poll was conducted from Oct. 23 to Oct. 25, it suggests that accusations from fired GOP strategist Michael Brodkorb had little impact on voters' opinions. On Oct. 15 in interviews with  several news outlets, Brodkorb alleged that Republican legislators only put the marriage amendment on the ballot in order to bring more conservative voters to the polls in an important election year. Every member of the state legislature is up for re-election this year.

Poll Date Support Oppose Undecided Number Surveyed Margin of Error Star-Tribune 5/5/11 39% 55% 7% 809 +/- 4.7% KSTP/SurveyUSA 5/24/11 51% 40% 10% 552 Not reported Star-Tribune 11/8/11 48% 43% 9% 807 +/- 4/4% Public Policy Polling 1/21/12 48% 44% 8% 1,236 +/- 2.8% KSTP/SurveyUSA 2/2/12 47% 39% 4% 542 +/- 4.3% Public Policy Polling 6/3/12 43% 49% 8% 937 +/- 3.1% KSTP/SurveyUSA 7/19/12 52% 37% 6% 552 +/- 4.3% KSTP/SurveyUSA 9/11/12 50% 43% 8% 551

+/- 4.3%

Star-Tribune 9/17 to 9/19, 2012 49% 47% 4% 800

+/- 3.5

Star-Tribune 10/23 to 10/25, 2012 48% 47% 5% 800

+/- 3.5%

Supporters of the amendment told the Star-Tribune that "our side has been historically under-represented" in polls on the issue. Opponents said they were placing their faith in Minnesotans' "values of freedom and treating others as you would want to be treated" when voters go to the polls.

Of the respondents, 56 percent said their faith leaders' positions on the amendment didn't strongly influence their votes. Perhaps surprisingly, more than two-thirds of those voters told pollsters they planned on voting "No."

Respondents who had a friend or family member who was gay or lesbian were dramatically more likely to vote against the amendment, supporting a amendment opponent's key strategy of encouraging supporters to have conversations with potential amendment supporters describing how their LGBT friends would be impacted by the amendment.

Peter October 31, 2012 at 08:43 PM
Vote NO on both amendments! If you'd like to actually provide a practical reason to support your conclusion, please do.
Lori Martin November 01, 2012 at 04:26 AM
To vote yes is to vote to discriminate against an entire group of people. Let's keep separation of church and state. Voting yes puts us all down a slippery slope. Vote No. We do not need this amendment. Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota.
pat cartier November 01, 2012 at 04:48 PM
Be careful when someone attempts to sway one to vote no because it is already law. By voting no it can cause a redefinition of marriage. Voting yes describes marriage as between one man and one women. The problem is that the issue can be brought back to the voters as early as next year. I would rather see that the definition be permanent. But I am sure if legislators had done this the definition may have not passed and the definition could be changed permanently as well. Becareful of the Rhetoric from the LGBT people and their supporters. They are not dumb and have and will continue to confuse the issue like when the wording had been change on the ballot that was not what had been legislated. It has been corrected. There is still a little confusion so if one wants marriage defined as a man and women vote YES.
Hawkeye 77 November 05, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Agree. Vote "no"
Hawkeye 77 November 05, 2012 at 06:19 PM
I can't believe some of the stuff that is coming from those that support this strange definition of marriage. Your description of human biology was simply disgusting. I hope that you aren't talking to young folks like this. The retoric about Minnesota teachers teaching same sex marriage is absolutely goofy. The state constitution or ANY consitituion does not exist to make law to discriminate against part of the state or US population. I'm not sure why folks like you are so interested in proliferating hate and stupidity... remember, this one man, one woman gig has a 50% success rate. Maybe we should be voting about odds at Mystic Lake. Finally, maybe you should be wiping your own shoot and washing better. Ooh! Another consitiutional admendment... clean potty hole!


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
See more »