Poll: Minnesotans remain split on same-sex marriage one year later

GayMarriage002.jpg
B FRESH Photography
It's been eight months since Margaret Miles and Cathy ten Broeke said, "I do," becoming the first same-sex married couple in Minnesota. The moment marked a victory for equality and human dignity -- but above all, love.

Not everyone saw it that way at the time, and they still don't today. On Monday, KSTP-TV released polling conducted by SurveyUSA that shows Minnesotans remain split on the law, about one year after Gov. Mark Dayton signed it. Of those surveyed, 47 percent approved, 45 percent disapproved, and 7 percent were apparently plagued by indecision.

See also:
Richard Carlbom on making same-sex marriage a reality


The vast majority of people who participated in the survey were registered voters, which has some political commentators wondering how the division will influence fall elections. For instance, Larry Jacobs, a professor at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs, told the TV station, "Voters may have a verdict to make come November."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have painted the issue in starkly religious terms. Archbishop John Nienstedt, you may remember, suggested that the issue wasn't even debatable. Autumn Leva of the Minnesota Family Council provided City Pages with a statement in which she said several Republican representatives have already lost their endorsements.

She continued, "Minnesotans wanted our marriage laws left as they were, and I think elected officials will hear criticism from their constituents during their 2014 campaigns."

Maybe so. But the battle for marriage equality also had the effect of galvanizing supporters like never before. Richard Carlbom of Minnesotans United for All Families ran perhaps the largest grassroots campaign in Minnesota ever.

-- Follow Jesse Marx on Twitter @marxjesse or send tips to jmarx@citypages.com



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
58 comments
Corinne Braun
Corinne Braun

Irrelevant - it shouldn't matter what others think about someone else's life. Glad we finally go this one solved and put to rest.

Sandra Fredine
Sandra Fredine

If they don't like it - don't marry a person of the same 'sex'. :p

Rob Peterson
Rob Peterson

I never really understood why people opposed it in the first place. It's 2014.

Carrie Graf
Carrie Graf

Married people shouldn't be given any special benefits. Problem solved.

Lauren Clauer
Lauren Clauer

Poll: half of Minnesotans still wish they lived in the Stone Age

jmy67
jmy67

Couple problems here: 1) you cannot say, well, straight marriage sucks so don't bother.That's not your call to determine for other people. Some straight marriages actually don't. 2) Civil unions most certainly do NOT confer the same rights as marriage. Marriage brings automatically over 1,000 rights recognized by the federal gov't even if it's Britney Spears getting married in a shotgun Vegas wedding. Civil unions confer many but not all rights and ONLY in states which recognize civil unions, whereas marriage is federally recognized. That means that same-sex couples are taxed unequally depending on the respective states or residence of both partners and that unequal treatment under the law is unconstitutional. Many of the same rights conferred automatically by marriage e.g. taxation, property rights, hospital visitation rights are indeed available to same-sex couples, but requiring them to hire expensive legal counsel in order to secure the same rights everyone else gets automatically is again unequal treatment under the law and unconstitutional.

Christopher James Weiland
Christopher James Weiland

Cool. A poll taken by SurveyUSA, an automated polling firm who conducts studies via touch tone land lines. Very scientific.

John Bunch
John Bunch

Well, Jack, I guess if we all never voted or donated to political causes, and we all avoided each other, we could avoid forcing our views on each other. Unfortunately, politics is often a zero sum game in which one side doesn't get all it wants. And the arena for deciding that is called the political process.

John Bunch
John Bunch

Interesting point of view for a libertarian to take. Mass mobbing a CEO out of office because he takes the view of marriage that has existed for 2,000 years in every society. (btw, I personally support gay marriage. But I found the Mozilla thing authoritarian).

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

Calling me blind doesn't validate your argument. Your perception of history is distorted.

Dan Mason
Dan Mason

Like straight marriage is so great? Living with some nagging b%tch as she slowly gets more and more controlling and obese until finally you give up and she takes half your sh%t and bangs all your friends. Have at it.

Jack Yahalo
Jack Yahalo

Right... so, marriage has been here forever and was originally explicitly defined as between a man and a woman and has had no other restrictions and all those restrictions about inter-racial marriage and women as property and all the other backwards, out-dated beliefs were simply perversions of the original definition. Uh-huh. Man, you are really really blind to history and reality if you think that.

Garrett Bucko
Garrett Bucko

Why is keeping the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman so important to you, Dan?

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

Ok so if I don't agree with you I'm anti American. Good to know who is close minded

Jack Yahalo
Jack Yahalo

'Cause it's been redefined many times over the centuries to reflect the changes in society. Why stop allowing definitions and social structures to change now? Change is the foundation of a strong civilization.

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

Lol, no jack that is a perversion of marriage as well. That redefinition didn't last either

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

Why does the definition of marriage have to be redefined?

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

I'm not arguing on taking away any rights. Civil unions give all the same rights.

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

Only since the early 2000's has the definition of marriage changed. You are arguing nothing against no one

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

No one is talking about religion. Marriage is historically for the purpose of having and raising children in a safe stable environment.

John Bunch
John Bunch

But I think that many who disapprove of gay marriage still think that gays should not be discriminated against (in employment, buying a house, etc.). I would not confuse the two.

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

Now we can say centuries. That is the purpose marriage, has been forever

John Bunch
John Bunch

So based on current liberal orthodoxy, the 53% (the majority) are horrible people and homophobes who should lose their jobs, like the Mozilla CEO.

Tucker Benjamin
Tucker Benjamin

And I'd like to know where that is unquestionably stated, other than the bible

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

No, not every institution can or will live up to its purpose that doesn't mean it should be redefined.

Garrett Bucko
Garrett Bucko

Dan - if a man and a woman marry but are unable to have children, is the marriage then invalid?

Jeremy Deysach
Jeremy Deysach

This doesn't seem like a good article to run - this implies that fifty-three percent disapprove of same-sex marriage in Minnesota - pointing out that the majority disapprove isn't a great way to encourage tolerance and inclusiveness...

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

I'm not for discrimination, let people be happy but marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation

Tucker Benjamin
Tucker Benjamin

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, you mean discriminating against a group of people on the basis of sexual preference is only recently an inhumane and unmistakably immoral thing to do?

Just-a-Guy
Just-a-Guy

I truely think that many of those opposed to gay marriage are older and even elderly. In ten years time we will see even stronger support for same sex marriage because this older viewpoint will die off as older generations die off. Plenty of my republican friends who are in thier 20's and 30's either support same sex marriage or just don't care because it is not thier business. It is this older religious group that are holding on and opposing it for some selfish and arrogant reason.

Tucker Benjamin
Tucker Benjamin

Neither does the application of ethics that have been outdated for centuries

Dan Anderson
Dan Anderson

Calling names and passing bad laws doesn't make it right

Gibbous
Gibbous

Actually, he left because Mozilla depends on crowdsourcing to do it's business. Essentially, volunteers. If you piss of all of your volunteers, you're company goes under. The CEO understood that this business model has some vulnerabilities, i.e. your "employees" are free to choose not to work for you if they don't like your politics.  The CEO responded in such a manner as to preserve the bottom line. He didn't have to leave, but he chose to do so so that he could keep the $ flowing. 



_Joe_
_Joe_

Marriage has existed for far more than 2000 years, and predates christianity by longer than christianity has existed.

MNjoe
MNjoe topcommenter

Exactly - move to Russia or Uganda - or maybe Alabama if you don't like it. Love is the law and it ain't gonna be repealed.

_Joe_
_Joe_

It's not.  You just don't get to define it for others.  I don't give a crap how you view your marriage, and my marriage is none of your business.

MNjoe
MNjoe topcommenter

Yes, and separate but equal worked so well in the south, didn't it?  

MNjoe
MNjoe topcommenter

And how about even farther back when marriage was a property exchange between families? Remember the dowry? And how many wives did some of those old testament guys have? Hmmmmm.....

_Joe_
_Joe_

Really?  Are you so quick to forget that interracial marriage used be be illegal, and that your precious little fiction was used to argue against that too?

MNjoe
MNjoe topcommenter

Then why aren't you trying to ban marriages between men and women who can't or don't plan on having children?  Hmmmmm....

Onan
Onan

Most traditional marriages were concerned with property and wealth, not love or sex.

MNjoe
MNjoe topcommenter

That's an unnecessary comma there, Dan. And you need a period. Thank you.

_Joe_
_Joe_

It's not even in the bible.

_Joe_
_Joe_

@MNjoe  

According to the new testament, none of that matters. Except when it we decide that it does.  But even then, it only applies to other people.  Not me.  I'm special.


I'd like to personally thank Jesus for writing the new testament for me to use as a golden club to beat others about the head with

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...