Poll shows opposition gaining on both gay marriage and Voter ID

A Democratic-leaning poll shows both constitutional amendments trending in the direction of the opposition. Tom Scheck of MPR writes: “Public Policy Polling, a North Carolina firm linked to Democrats, says opposition to two proposed constitutional amendments has grown since the firm last polled on the issues. The poll of 937 likely voters in Minnesota between Oct. 5 – 8 finds that a growing number of people are opposed to a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, and a constitutional amendment that would require people to present photo identification to vote. The poll found that 49 percent of those polled are opposed to the amendment to ban same-sex marriage while 46 percent support it and 5 percent say they’re not sure. … Meanwhile, support for the so-called Voter ID amendment has dropped from previous polls. The measure still is supported by a majority of those polled (51 percent) but support has dipped seven percentage points since a June poll. Forty-three percent of those polled oppose the amendment, while 6 percent say they’re not sure.”

Doug Belden’s PiPress story on the poll also includes this:
“Among the other findings in Monday’s poll:
• Democrats have a 52/40 advantage on the generic legislative ballot;
• Gov. Mark Dayton has a 53 percent approval rating, compared to 33 percent who disapprove. Sen. Al Franken has approval/disapproval numbers of 49-38 percent. Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak’s favorable margin is 38-22. As for former Gov. Jesse Ventura, 29% of voters rate him favorably, compared to 53% with a negative opinion.” And T-Paw?

Baird Helgeson of the Strib includes: “The new poll found the greatest movement among independent voters, who now oppose the [marriage] measure 52 to 42. A month ago, the results were nearly flipped, with 51 percent in favor and 42 percent against. Women oppose the measure 51 percent to 43 percent in favor. Fully 49 percent of men are prepared to vote no compared to 47 who support the amendment. The strongest opposition comes from young people, who say they plan to vote against the amendment 53 percent to 38 percent. … Opposition [to Voter ID] is strengthening among Democrats, where 71 percent are opposed. Support among independents is sagging, though they still support it 52 percent to 41 percent. That’s down a good deal from a month ago, when support was 62 percent to 33 percent.”

Belden also had a story on Canadian Catholic clerics in town to support the local archbishop on the marriage amendment: “A panel backed by supporters of the marriage amendment said penalties for businesses that deny service to gay couples, rewriting of school curriculum to include a new definition of marriage and loss of parental control over children’s education are among consequences of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada. The group, which included Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, spoke Monday … at the University of St. Thomas law school in Minneapolis. It was convened by the Minnesota Catholic Conference and Minnesota for Marriage, which are advocating passage of a proposed amendment in Minnesota that would add the definition of marriage as a man-woman union to the state’s constitution. In practice, Prendergast said, ‘other things seem to trump religious freedom or religious expression.’ And the law’s had a chilling effect, he says. ‘What I think is becoming more evident is people self-censoring themselves, not saying what they think.’ ” This is a variation on the argument that disclosure/transparency creates an environment hostile to people and groups supporting restrictive legislation.

Earlier, Tim Pugmire of MPR had said: “The disagreement over the potential impact of voter ID is fueled by the lack of detail in the proposed constitutional amendment. The brief document makes no mention of military or overseas voters. If voters pass the amendment in November, state lawmakers will have to fill in many of the blanks next year with enabling legislation. Other states with voter ID laws have exemptions for soldiers or allow the use of U.S. military identification.” If it passes, it’ll be in the courts for years.

The Bimmers and Lexi may have to run single file in certain areas of Edina. Tim Harlow of the Strib reports: “The city recently added a number of bike lanes on north-south and east-west thoroughfares and other streets to make it easier for cyclists to pedal around town. In addition, Edina has added 48 new bike racks at more than a dozen retail outlets and other popular locations in the city. Among the improvements are bicycle boulevards on W. 54th Street and Wooddale Avenue, colored bicycle lanes on Valley View Road, bicycle detectors at traffic signals on 54th Street and France Avenue, and advisory bike lanes on Wooddale Avenue and parts of 54th Street. Advisory lanes look like dedicated bike lanes, but instead of having a solid line separating them for the regular traffic lanes, they have a dashed line. That means motorists may drive in the advisory lanes when bicyclists are not present.”

If you’re starting to get used to the beer sommelier bit from waiters at the neighborhood brew joint, be advised of the showdown beginning this Thursday. Says Michael Agnew of City Pages: “The ‘Iron Chef’ of Minnesota home brewing is about to get under way. Starting this Thursday, October 11, a select group of experienced brewers will go head to head to become the state’s first Top Brewer. Twenty-four competitors will square off in the qualifying round that will narrow the field to four. But in the end only one will emerge victorious. To that mighty meister of beer goes the glory and the opportunity to brew their winning draught for commercial release at Lucid Brewing. Top Brewer Minnesota is a project of Chop Liver Beer Fests and Thrifty Hipster in association with Blue Plate Group and Lucid Brewing Company. It’s intended as a celebration of the local craft beer scene. By uniting local breweries, beer lovers, home brewers, and craft beer bars in one event, the organizers hope to showcase each group and highlight the contributions they make to the community.” I may enter my kid’s uber-hoppy Headless Visigoth stout.

Mitch Berg, of the Shot in the Dark blog, notes the PiPress’ decision to avoid endorsements this year … instead of, you know, endorsing both candidates like they did in 2000. Says Berg: “I suspect – and this is just a, er, shot in the dark on my part, pure speculation —that there are one or two reasons for this:

  • The Pioneer Press has figured out that press endorsements are just another form of bandwagoneering unbecoming a ‘journalistic’ entity. While the Pioneer Press’ endorsement record is a lot more bipartisan than the Strib’s, a record (generally, across the media, not just at the Pioneer Press) of mostly-DFL endorsements provides prime ammunition for the charge that the press is biased to the left.
  • They were facing the prospect of having to not endorse Betty McCollum.  The long-time DFL Congresswoman has been such an incredible non-entity, and has developed into such a rancorously partisan figure in Congress, that a significant part of the editorial board decided not to endorse.  After a fierce battle with the rest of the board, and facing backlash from a pro-DFL staff, the paper decided to just avoid the whole mess.”

Betty McCollum … “rancorously partisan”? My guess is “rancorously” was Mitch’s word-of-the-day and he had to use it once somewhere before sundown.

When you have your own blog, you are apparently entitled to your own facts. At Let Freedom Ring, Gary Gross writes: “Jerry McCarter is challenging State Sen. John Pederson in SD-14. A substantial part of McCarter’s message is anchored in the state government shutdown. … Gov. Dayton shut state government down. Included in the post is the link to the negotiation documentation showing Gov. Dayton and the GOP legislature had agreed to sign an agreement limiting the June 30 special session ‘to passing a ‘lights on’ extension of funding for all current operations and obligations of state government until 11:59 of July 11, 2011.’  The GOP legislature didn’t reject signing that agreement. Gov. Dayton did. Whatever DFL candidates say, the indisputable fact is that Gov. Dayton and the DFL rejected the GOP’s plan to keep the state government open. Gov. Dayton’s arbitrary decision to shut state government down hangs on his head and on Rep. Thissen’s and Sen. Bakk’s heads.” Next: Gross on documentation proving the North attacked Fort Sumter.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (34)

  1. Submitted by Lynne Geistfeld on 10/09/2012 - 08:25 am.

    Gay Marriage

    As a Christian, it continues to baffle me as to how our country can accept gay marriage. This is not an issue of accepting diversity or equality, this is accepting of something that has been deemed a sin by our Creator. I know this sounds harsh, but why do we continue to turn our heads and become accepting of those things that are not tolerated by God. Yes, God forgives the sinner, but then He says, “sin no more.”

    • Submitted by Matt Haas on 10/09/2012 - 02:02 pm.


      We do because a great many of us, while recognizing your right to hold whatever view you will on the matter don’t recognize your or any other religions right to dictate secular public policy. It doesn’t matter what your, or any other creator has to say on the subject. What you believe is sin is of no consequence to anyone but you. Sorry if that is harsh.

    • Submitted by Dan Landherr on 10/09/2012 - 11:30 am.

      Sinning against God

      “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is the first of the Ten Commandments but it’s contradicted by the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Worshipping craven images, coveting your neighbor’s property and not keeping the Sabbath are also legal. Even lying is often protected speech under the First Amendment. This all falls under “separation of church and state”.

    • Submitted by Tim Walker on 10/09/2012 - 11:44 am.

      Religious interpretations vs. secular laws

      A simple reply is this: Why should your religious opinions be placed into law, and not those of other religions that have different interpretations of God’s will?

      And a corollary: Note that the “sin” of homosexuality is in the Old Testament. So, Lynne, are you also in favor of incorporating other OT rules into our laws, such as Exodus 35:2, which mandates that those who work on the Sabbath be put to death?

      How about the ones permitting slavery?

      Or that one prohibiting the lending of money at interest?

      Or that one that says a widow has to marry her brother in law?

      You see how problematic this quickly becomes?

      Makes one appreciate the separation of church and state, eh?

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/09/2012 - 11:44 am.

      Sharia is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws.

    • Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/09/2012 - 11:45 am.

      Point made


    • Submitted by Steven Prince on 10/09/2012 - 11:58 am.

      You are entitled to your religious beliefs


      Not all Christian faiths agree with you, and not everyone is Christian. Some religions buy the notion of sin, many focus instead on our personal dealings with each other, instead of our obligations to God.

      I believe the state should leave definitions of marriage to our clergy and congregations, why exactly do you believe our Constitution should limit my freedom to practice my religion in a way consistent with my community’s views and values?

      There is no reason your church or your clergy cannot decline to marry same-sex couples, if that is what your religious beliefs require. But why should a church or member of the clergy with a different view, also heartfelt, and also informed by their religious values, be barred from performing valid marriages by the religious beliefs of you and your church? Finally, why does this need to be enshrined in the Constitution, instead of in laws, that can be adjusted over time to reflect the evolving beliefs and values of the community?

    • Submitted by Jeff Klein on 10/09/2012 - 12:01 pm.

      A civics lesson

      This isn’t a theocracy and I don’t care about your God.

    • Submitted by Dan Hintz on 10/09/2012 - 12:15 pm.

      You don’t speak for all Christians

      A lot of Christians and Christian churches are working very hard to defeat this amendment. Frankly, I am more baffled by people who claim to be Christian and support writing discrimination into our state constitution.

    • Submitted by Pat McGee on 10/09/2012 - 12:48 pm.

      Separation of Church and State, perhaps you have heard of it? No one says you’re religion has to accept gay marraige. But you can’t impose your religion on everyone else.

    • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 10/09/2012 - 01:00 pm.

      As an American Christian, it baffles me that people believe that they not only have the power to judge and control others as if they’re God (who gave people free will), but legislate their religion on to others. And as an American Christian, it’s my understanding that sin is a matter of will, not biology. Who in their right mind would will themselves to be gay when so many would happily commit harm to gay people? The answer is that it’s not a sin of will, but the biology given to them by the Creator. Is the Creator’s biology flawed? Or is it our ability to perceive biology as sin flawed?

    • Submitted by Chris Farmer-Lies on 10/09/2012 - 01:05 pm.

      Because we don’t live in a theocracy.

    • Submitted by John Wexler on 10/09/2012 - 02:14 pm.

      Not how Jesus would think

      Your evidently selectively reading the bible out of context.

    • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/10/2012 - 07:00 am.

      Now you see Lynn

      Why it is fruitless to use morality to warrant an argument with leftists. Their continued existence depends upon a moral code that is tied to a pretty red ballon floating through the sky.

      Too, common sense is meaningless in confronting folks who not only tell us that sand is food; they believe it.

      In the present case, I advocate the use of science and Human Biology in discussions with others. Rational people will listen to the truth.

      • Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/10/2012 - 07:28 am.

        Science and Human Biology as a stand-in

        A lot more convenient than admitting that you consider homosexuality to be an aberration and that THAT is what actually underpins all your arguments against the idea of same sex marriage.

        • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/10/2012 - 09:34 am.

          You’re right Pat

          I do see homosexuality as an aberration. Science and human biology prove it.

          You see, it is logic that underpins my arguments.

          • Submitted by Hugh Gitlin on 10/10/2012 - 03:50 pm.


            Other abberations: cleft palate, conjoined twins, 6 digits. Tom, are you saying take away those people’s right to marry?

            • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/10/2012 - 07:05 pm.

              While, since those are genetic aberrations

              Some caution is called for, they do not attempt to re-define human biology to suit themselves. Also, those aberrations do not manifest themselves wholly by behaviors.

          • Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/10/2012 - 04:44 pm.

            Early morning posts

            I left out one very important word when I wrote my post early this morning.

            Using “science and human biology” as a stand-in argument is a lot more convenient than admitting that you consider homosexuality to be a moral aberration and that THAT is what actually underpins all your arguments against the idea of same sex marriage.

            So – do you see homosexuality as a moral aberration?

            • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/10/2012 - 07:02 pm.

              Why yes Pat, yes I do

              But I don’t argue morality with those who’s own floats like a pretty red ballon through the sky.

              And now we’ve come full circle, haven’t we?

      • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 10/10/2012 - 09:04 am.

        Amoral leftists

        Yes, we amoral leftists eat sand as food. Somehow, though, we don’t starve.

        Unless you are to claim that each and every educational experience I had from high school to college to graduate school at the University of Minnesota was a lie, I’m pretty sure that I have a better grasp of science and human biology than you, Mr. Swift. Well, even if you do claim that, it would be incorrect and I would still have a better grasp of science and human biology.

        Apparently backhanded personal insults can get through the MinnPost filter. For the reviewer that allows such things, Mr. Swift’s above post ascribed the following traits to the posters that replied to Lynn: “leftist” (used as an epithet), immoral/amoral, lacking common sense, irrational.

  2. Submitted by James Hamilton on 10/09/2012 - 08:43 am.

    Partisan, yes,

    but rancorous? McCollum may be one of the most reliable Democratic votes in the House but she plays well with other children. That seems to be the way her district likes her, given the huge margins by which she’s held office.

  3. Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/09/2012 - 08:44 am.


    “When you have your own blog, you are apparently entitled to your own facts”

    Well heck – I just assumed that’s why getting your own blog has become such a popular thing to do!

  4. Submitted by Jackson Cage on 10/09/2012 - 08:46 am.

    Only at Shot in the Dark

    …could you use the phrase “an incredible non-entity, and has developed into such a rancorously partisan figure in Congress” and mean someone other than Bachmann. But then again, the World as Seen By Berg and his little band of weel-scrubbed, hustling rubes have never been concerned with the real world.

    • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 10/09/2012 - 01:02 pm.

      They just want to say bad things

      I have a hard time understanding how someone can be both “rancorously partisan” and an “incredible non-entity.” They seem to be mutually exclusive.

  5. Submitted by Steve Titterud on 10/09/2012 - 10:04 am.

    The more the voters weigh and consider these amendments…

    …the more they will oppose them.

    The Voter ID amendment is nothing more than chicanery, a pig-in-a-poke. It is not appropriate as a constitutional amendment; rather, if anything, it should be in legislation. But with a certain veto from the governor, and unable to override a veto, the proponents really don’t care what they are doing to the constitution.

    If it passes, it will only be because the election came on before the public had sufficient time to become sufficiently informed.

    Wise voters will see the uncertainties in the effects this amendment will have – or COULD have..

    We shouldn’t amend the constitution in a vague and indeterminate way nor should we accept any assurances from the proponents that it really won’t change MN elections much and further, that it won’t cost anything.

  6. Submitted by John Edwards on 10/09/2012 - 11:22 am.


    “When you have your own blog, you are apparently entitled to your own facts” as MinnPost proves daily.

  7. Submitted by Steve Sundberg on 10/09/2012 - 11:56 am.

    Re: Gay Marriage

    @Lynn Gorski:

    Shouldn’t the New Testament should constitute the bedrock of your faith (especially the Sermon on the Mount)? Relying on the Old Testament for your “law” does not follow the practice of Christ, who said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

    # of times homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament: 0

    # of times adultery and divorce are mentioned in the New Testament: 24+

    It was also Jesus who said there were really only two Commandments a person needs to follow: Believe in God, and love thy neighbor as one would thyself.

    • Submitted by Lynne Geistfeld on 10/10/2012 - 06:01 pm.

      So if we believe in God and love thy neighbor, is that all there is to it? Homosexuality is addressed in the New Testament, just as it was in the old. Read Romans 1, starting at verse 24-27. Homosexuality was as widespread in Paul’s day as it is in ours. Yes, God is willing to receive anyone who comes to Him in faith, and as Christians we should love and accept others no matter what the background. However, you cannot turn “love one another” into “love what they do.”

      As for the two commandments…if you believe in God, your actions will follow. James 2:19–“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.”

      • Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/10/2012 - 09:26 pm.

        What part of . . . . . .

        What part of “The United States is not a theocracy” do you not understand?

        This nation respects people of ALL religions (as well as those of no religion at all), You have a right to believe what you believe, but you do not have any standing to require others to believe as you do or even to believe at all.

        It’s called “separation of church and state” and it is one of the things that makes this nation great, as long as we don’t permit its erosion.

      • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 10/15/2012 - 09:41 am.


        After all the stuff is laid out in Romans I (including a lot of other things, such as gossiping, not loving, and the like), Romans II says, pretty much, “you’re not perfect, either.” Specifically, it says that your judgment is an affront to God because you are not honoring God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience; you responsible only for your own actions.

  8. Submitted by john herbert on 10/09/2012 - 12:57 pm.

    Same Sex marriage

    Moderator – there was a typo in the submission under this heading a minute ago. Sorry.

    You are correct that this issue has nothing to do with diversity – but it has all to do with equal rights under the law.

    Marriage in Minnesota is defined as a “civil contract between a man and a woman” hence all legal marriages are just contractual relationships between consenting adults, or if you like, a civil union.

    “Married” couples receive legal and financial protections from the state that non-married couples do not receive. Therein lies the issue. Should the state arbitrarily deny two men or two women the same opportunity to contract? I think not. (See the Fourteenth Amendment). This is secular marriage which is designed to ease the transfer of property and to establish parentage short of a DNA test.

    You and your church are free to consider same sex relationships a sin and would never be forced to “marry” a same sex couple.

    Let’s substitute the term “civil union” for “marriage” in the statute, allow two consenting adults to establish their contractual relationship before the state and then let each church decide if their God will do the same. We then can devote time and resources to serious issues like trying to close the educational achievement gap and figuring out how we can pay for health care for aging Boomers.

    P.S. I am from North Minneapolis and am another Catholic voting no.

  9. Submitted by David Greene on 10/09/2012 - 01:45 pm.

    Filling in the Blanks

    We can already guess at how those blanks around voter suppression would be filled in by Republicans. One simply has to look at the legislation they passed that was vetoed by the Governor. No exemptions for anyone. When amendments to the amendment bill were brought forward to exempt certain groups, they were rejected.

    As to Steve’s point about it passing due to lack of information — Get out there and talk to people!

    I’ve been on the phones and done doorknocking. I’ve had some really great conversations with people and quite a few flipped form “yes” to “no” once they understood the issue.

    The most important thing for people to know is that the amendment language doesn’t provide any details. Why should we write that into the constitution where there are huge concerns about unintended consequences? We can vote no and tell the legislature to draft a better law, not an amendment.

Leave a Reply