Poll: Majority In MN Oppose Ban On Gay Marriage

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A new poll shows the majority of Minnesotans surveyed oppose amending the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Star Tribune Minnesota Poll says 55 percent of respondents oppose such a ban, while 39 percent favor it. Support for the ban seems to rise with age. Sixty percent of respondents aged 18 to 34 oppose the idea. A slimmer majority, 51 percent, of Minnesotans older than 65 oppose the ban.

“We should have our own choices and abilities to choose what we want and not have someone categorize or label people because of their sexual orientation,” said Adam Leistiko, a 22-year-old Democrat from Edina who opposes the marriage amendment. “I have a very open mind.”

The Minnesota Senate approved the amendment this week after lengthy debate. The House is expected to follow suit. If approval is given, voters would be asked in the 2012 election whether the Constitution should be amended to “provide that only a union of one man and one woman” be recognized as marriage. Constitutional amendments need approval from a majority of state lawmakers and a simple majority of those voting in a general election.

The latest survey reflects a change from a Minnesota poll done in 2004 when 58 percent of Minnesotans supported a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Doug Regester, 53, of Minneapolis, said he supports putting the question to voters.

“If there is a way to give the people the say rather than just having a few politicians decide, I’m all for that,” Regester said. Limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman has been shown “over the centuries” to be “the most beneficial to society,” Regester said.

The poll of 806 Minnesotans was done last week and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

  • Yelper

    Take that Republicans! Lets let voting season begin so we can end the bigotry!

    Hoo Ya!

    • Justin

      its not even a dem or repub issue. I’m against the amendment and I think you sound like an uniformed moron.

    • Tea would vote Pro-Gay

      Well Yelper…I’m Republican and I would for AGAINST a ban…..

      I have NO isses this!

      So…..though MOST Republicans are against this….I am one who is NOT!

      Trust me…I would take the gay man/man couple as my neighbors ANY DAY over the blue collar hillbilly’s that live down the street from me ANY DAY!

      Give hillbilly’s money and they are the WORST…..Give a gay coupe money…and the property value of EVERY HOUSE on the block goes up 10% as they add CLASS to the neighborhood!

      If ANY GAY COUPLES would like to me to my neighborhood….PLEASE LET ME KNOW, you have a straight couple who will help you move!!!!

    • My Vote

      Where was my vote? I was never told how or when to vote against this!

      • Scott

        the vote was just takenby the gays

      • TS

        Same here! I had no idea there was a poll.

        • Bill

          This is a public opinion poll, people. It’s a sampling. The actual vote is not until November, 2012. You are encouraged to learn basic politics, including the difference between public opinion polls and actual elections… and also to read the article which states “voters would be asked in the 2012 election whether the Constitution should be amended “

    • interestingly enough

      Where is my vote? I was never told about a time or place where I could vote against this on the poll. What a bogus poll and yes I agree that 55% is not exactly a land slide victory.

    • Jake

      It’s about money. It always has been. It is about survivor benefits with pensions, housing, and other programs originally designed to support those staying home to raise kids.

      How is the world a better place by subsidizing same-sex couples? It is not. If there are children involved (with the help of a third party, obviously), that is one thing, but if it’s about Jonathan going to work while Kevin stays home to work on his pottery, they can pay for that themselves.

      This is not about fairness, or inclusion, or about making the world a better place. It’s about money. The people demanding state recognition and subsidy of same-sex couples should admit that and be ashamed for pretending it is not.

      • Andrew

        No Jake, it’s about rights and the role we want government to play in our lives. If my fiancee were to be hospitalized, I would have no control over the medical decisions. It would fall to her parents, neither of which she would want making those decisions. This is just an example of the problems same sex couple’s face. We need to have goverment sanctioned unions that are available to all. As for the religious side, the state has no place in telling any church what is acceptable. Some denominations will support same sex marriages, some won’t. It’s not goverment’s place to say.

        • LadyJane

          @Andrew – an intelligent answer. Hope you are active next year to defeat this and the other amendments being pushed.

          I do not understand why so many do not realize that their religion belief is not universal. I’m not forcing my belief structure on them, why do a few think they can force theirs on me?

      • B

        Marriage should be about love and not money. However, what we’re saying is that if you extend financial benefits to opposite-sex couples who have made a lifetime pledge (which over 50% fault on, btw), those benefits should go to same-sex couples who have made the same pledge. Why should Suzie get to work on her poetry and not Kevin (in your example)?

        In terms of taxes, I honestly don’t think anyone should get tax benefits for being married or for having kids. Why should you pay lower taxes just because you’re married? Why should I have to pay for your kid’s public education, public transit, etc., while you actually get paid for having that kid? Even as Republicans try to “save us money” in the budget by cutting important things, they continue to pay people to have kids via a tax cut. If you want kids, pay for them. If not, don’t have them.

        • Jake

          @B, you make the point. It’s about money. Certainly, a percentage of heterosexual marriages don’t have kids, and that is inefficient. But 100% of same-sex couples don’t. There is not even a child raising argument there. Your point appears to be that the benefit should be discontinued for all, not extended to same sex couples. That is logically sound.

          @ Andrew, get a Health Care Directive. You can designate anyone you want to make health care decisions or have access to you in the hospital. Moreover, you don’t need a religious affiliation to have a heterosexual marriage. It is not about state imposed religion. It’s about money.

          • Andrew

            @Jake, If it’s about money then why don’t we just require everyone to get married? The marriage penalty in the tax code would boost the state income and reduce the deficit woudn’t it?

          • Superchik

            @Jake; Even a healthcare directive doesn’t protect or guarantee a same-sex couples’ rights. There have been many cases where living wills, directives, and/or power of attorney have all been ignored by the hospital. The hospital is NOT legally obligated to follow the directive.

            • Jake

              It is the same legal obligation they have to honor proof of marriage. See Minnesota Statutes Section 145C.07

              Please provide us some specific examples (and I mean names, dates, and locations where you have confirmed cases of this where it was legally ignored). If you cannot (and I’m pretty confident you cannot) then it’s clearly just an attempt to shift the focus away from the fact that it’s about money.

              • Superchik

                Okie dokie! Here you go:
                -A Fresno Hospital in California denied Teresa Rowe access to her parnter, Kristin Orbin after she collapses (May 30th, 2009). Diretive papers were provided yet ignored.
                -Janice Langbehn tried to visit her dying partner, Lisa Pond, along with several of their adopted children when Lisa was rushed to a Miami, FL hospital. Again the hospital denied her family access (May 18, 2009). Again, Directive papers were ignored.
                How about one more?
                -Sharon Reed was unable to see her partner of 17 years, Joann Ritchie when she was taken to the University of Washington medical center until a nurse made her leave citing only blood family and spouses may visit (September 3, 2005).
                So, now that I’ve provided some examples for you and have “proven this isn’t about the money” will you vote againts the amendment in 2012, now?

                • A man who was lucky.

                  You seem to want to pull in a few extreme examples. My partner of 36 years is now in a Nursing home in Bidmidji, MN. The facility has a hospice team that will step in at the needed moment, which will be soon. My partner does not even have to change rooms. The entire staff has been absolutely wonderful. From the doctors right down to the orderlies are well aware of our relationship. No one has even batted an eye to our situation. Perhaps it is the famous “Minnesota Nice’, but whatever it is I thank whatever god by whatever name who is responsible for the civil folks of Minnesota. Of course, not everyone is civilized, we do suffer the fools who belong to The Party of NO!!, Even as I write this the Republican led legislature is trying to legislate a change in the state constitution to outlaw same sex marriage! The last few days at the nursing facility, I have had many people comment on the duration of our relationship, many heterosexual people (I assume – I don’t need to know otherwise. and it is none of my business) ask our we have managed a long term relationship (becoming a rare thing in the “straight” world). Our two families are flying in from all over the country. I have a wonderful relationship with his family, they and I are all family. Three of my grown children are flying in tomorrow. They have known my partner for 36 years of their lives and have treated him as a member of their family, they and my partner have been close all these years. I realize that the two of us have been extremely lucky in how compassionate how families are. I, too, have heard horror stories. Civilized people understand that love does not ask questions, it happens when and where and between whomever. As long as there is life on this planet there will always be a group that feels it has the right to control another group. It is far easier to love than to hate, that is a choice, not your sexuality! May your life have some gorgeous sunsets. I am about to experience one.

                • Jake

                  Um. How about Minnesota, since that is the issue here?

      • Nancy

        wow, Really? I have to admit, that’s a new one.

      • Jim

        I demand state recognition of same sex couples just as I do mixed sex couples, and it’s about treating all humans equally, not about money. I have absolutely no monetary stake in gay marriage, I support it because it’s the right thing to do. Your statement here is false.

  • Munich

    55% is not exactly a “vast majority” especially when coming from a left-leaning news firm.

    • ft2yahoo.com

      TRUE TRUE TRue !!!

  • Larry

    I am 73 and straight

    1) The constitution is there to protect our rights, not take them away

    2) Gay Rights is a religious issue, not a political issue. Politicians should leave it alone and let the chuches deal with it.

    • Tom


      Why is gay rights a religious issue? The reason why it is a political issue is that you have people like that nut Tom Pritchard from MCCL and other social conservatives who want gov’t involved!

      • Larry

        Exactly my point, government should not be involved. If a religion wants recognize gay marriage (or not) it is OK. Don’t push it off on everyone.

        • Tom


          Certain Religious people will never accept gay marriage because they don’t consider it “normal:. Well if I was these certain Religious people I would look at myself in the mirror before you start throwing the word “normal” around.

          Or maybe email Tom Pritchard and ask him why he get politics involved in gay marriage and other social issues.

        • Superchik1017

          Most gay couples are not interested in having their marriage recognized by any religion and would oppose any bill forcing a church to recognize their marraige. What would make you think that same-sex marriage is a religious issue? Religion has nothing to do with having the same legal rights and responsibilities and heterosexual couples have.

          • Larry

            Everyboby seems to agree with me. Anyone who can legally perform a marriage has the right to perform a gay marriage and also has the right not to do so.

            Everybody I have talk to about this issue and was against it, was against it on religious grounds. I told them they were wrong.

  • Lark

    i like kevin comment.
    lets vote – I doubt it would pass.

  • Nancy

    I have never been able to get anyone who was opposed to gay marriage to answer this question. Please tell me how me living my life with a woman affects anyone negatively. Just one logical explaination. Not religious based. Not morally based. Because remember, every one is entitled to their own religious and moral beliefs.

    • Nancy

      jose –
      would you like to tell my 15 and 13 year old girls that? tell them that their family unit provides no befefit to society. WOW, and our state legislature believes that people like Jose are educated enough to decide my life……..that’s nice

      • Jose Cuervo

        You asked for a non-religous, non-moral reason to be opposed to gay marriage. I gave it to you. I’m sure you don’t like it, but it is the truth. (and the truth shall set you free)

        • Nancy

          yes, non-religious, non-moral…….AND logical.

    • LD in MN

      Bristol Palin’s “family unit” isn’t one man and one woman. She’s raising her kid on her own. Are you going to ban single parents too? The Republican’s love to celebrate Bristol Palin’s pre-marital sex lifestyle.

    • Ellen

      Divorce negatively affects society, so should it be illegal?

      • Jose Cuervo

        This discussion is about banning gay marriage, by way of a constitutional amendment. Divorce legality would have to be a separate discussion.

        • stace34

          But if your arguement is marriage is a sacred union between man and woman and that it benefits society and divorice ends that sacred union and hurts society, then shouldn’t you be working equally hard to ban divoirce?

        • Superchik1017

          Senator Barb Goodwin (DFL-Columbia Heighrs) attempted to change the language in the proposed amendment so it would make Divorce illegal. The comiittee voted it down – twice – before she could take another breath (look up Senator Barb Goodwin on YouTube to see the vote)! Bottom line: this isn’t about the “sanctity of marriage”, it’s about discrimination.

          • Kevin

            Its about morales……..

        • Jake

          Gay marriage is not being banned. Legal recognition of same-sex marriages is being debated. A couple’s personal or religiously-recognized marriage is not being limited in any way.

          • Nancy

            Is this what you tell yourself before you go to bed at night Jake so you can clear your own concious? . At least if you are going to defend this proposed amendment, call it like it is. All of this side stepping is really annoying

    • Julie

      because it scares them.
      what scares them or what they cannot understand they destroy

      • Cornfused

        Okay I don’t get this????Gay guys don’t like girls right?….Then why do they emulate them.???Butch gals dress like men but are not turned on by them?Full flannel and work boot alert?

        • A full wonderful life

          What a pathetic little mind!! I’m not sure I like how your so-called “life” turned out! It is sad to be wasting what might have been a productive live. I hope our creator took the talents that would have been wasted on you and presented them to a deserving person who would have cherished them. You, my friend are about as useful as used condom. Karma – look out!!

    • Tom


      You living with another woman does not effect anybody else. Like I mentioned on another post on here is that those people who believe it does only believe that because that is what they are told by the man behind the pulpit. And Nancy those same people that is the only argument they have is a religious one you take that away from them they have no argument.

      • Nancy

        Tom and i don’t get it,

        right. and we wait and wait and wait……..
        where are the “Kevins” now? Right now, when someone is asking a direct question.
        The only thing this bill has done (and will do) is dig up hatred and anger for both sides of this issue.
        So much hate.
        Not sure how we keep teaching our kids to turn the other cheek…..but we will. regardless of the outcome

        • Jake

          @Nancy, you have every right to live with who you want and marry whoever you want. The question is whether the state must recognize your marriage (if you have one. You didn’t say.) must be recognized by the state for the purpose of receiving financial interests currently extended to heterosexual married couples. What is the advantage of subsidizing same-sex couples?

          Nobody is saying you can’t be with the one you love. I have no hatred whatsoever for people in same sex relationships. I just wish people wouldn’t claim this is about something other than a push for financial benefits.

    • Todd W. Olson

      So, Jose, you would say that a childless, heterosexual couple also provides no benefit to society? Are you saying that only heterosexual couples who actually produce children should be allowed to be married? Or should childless heterosexual couples be forced to divorce?

      • Amanda

        And how do you figure that???

  • Why Kevin?

    I get you Kevin….i used to be like you.

    But then someone really made me think one day.

    So i ask you…why are you opposed to gay marriage? Does it affect you in the least? Does it make your marriage any less valid? NO. Do you have to witness the gay marriages? NO. Is it going to raise your taxes? NO.

    So i do not understand where your objection originates from. These are fellow human beings we are talking about. Just like you….they have thoughts, feelings, dreams, aspirations, etc. They are your brothers and sisters. Cant you see that?

    This is just like segragation in the south….it is an issue of HUMANITY not politics or religious beliefs. We are talking about HUMAN BEINGS!!!!

    • Tom

      Why kevin?

      I think the answer is very simple. People like that believe if you do not live your life like they do and you don’t think like they do you are the one who has a problem. What two gay people does effect anybody else. It’s just that they are told that it does by the man at pulpit every saturday or sunday.

    • Why Why Kevin?

      Actually there are tax ramifications and the likes. If there aren’t any benefits to being married why is anyone married? In all the states that have had gay marriage bans on ballot all of them (30 some) have passed the ban. On the other hand Minnesota does have a history of being more liberal than even California. How is this just like segregation? Being sexually active is a choice. Skin Color isn’t a choice. We aren’t arguing over whether gays can vote or pay taxes, but whether they should receive the benefits of a marriage. They can and do already adopt children in the twin cities.

      • wake up

        Hmm the benefits – higher taxes – being responsible for someone else’s debts, bad driving record, etc. Will the person love you more by being saying vows – nope and as far as being able to legally make decisions on your significant others behalf – yeah good luck with that – the inlaws can still over ride your decisions – even with a living will – sorry seen it happen to my brother. I’ve seen enough of marriage/commitment whatever you want to call it to wonder why people even bother.

      • Paul

        I would hope people get married for other reasons then the tax benefits.

    • Jake

      I do not oppose same sex couples getting “married” in whatever context they choose. I do not support the state recognizing such relationships as marriages, because it is, in fact, about money. Survivor pension benefits, housing benefits and other subsidies that were provided for heterosexual married couples were about having children. While same-sex couples can raise children, they cannot produce them.

      While some heterosexual couples choose not to or are unable to have children, that inefficiency has been accepted by the public. The inefficiency in same-sex couples in 100% from a child production standpoint without third-party participation.

      This is not about fairness, or inclusion, or acceptance. Steve Simon’s Youtube video is a strawman knockover. The issue isn’t about getting rid of gay people. That is just silly. The issue is whether the world is a better place by subsidizing same-sex relationships. It is not.

      Perhaps the best result would be to reevaluate the issue of marriage benefits entirely. How about this: The current housing, pension, health care and other benefits currently apportioned to married couples goes to two-adult households with at least one minor child (or special needs person) as a dependent living there. One of the adults would be subsidized as a means of caring for the dependent. If the care is provided for at least ten years or ends due to tragedy, the subsidy continues. Otherwise, the subsidy ends and people can pay for their own lifestyle.

      The majority of people are now single. The subsidy of others not engaged in raising kids is neither appropriate nor does it make the world a better place. People demanding recognition of same-sex couples by the state should admit it is about money. And they ought to also be ashamed for pretending it is not.

      • stace34

        Why should we subsidize any “choice” that people make? Why should hetero couples who get married get subsidized with tax breaks? Why should people who choose to have children get tax breaks? Unless you eliminate all of the breaks that come with marriage you can not ban that right for other concenting adults. that is discrimination.

      • Mike

        What a cynical view of relationships… people do actually bond and form loving relationships without the concern of what monetary benefits they will get… at least the gay couples I know do – is that not how hetero relationships work?

        • Jake

          @mike. My point is quite the contrary. Relationships do not have to be recognized by the state to be valid. The point is that the push to have same-sex relationships recognized by the state is about access to financial benefits, not that it is necessary for the relationship to be meaningful.

  • Rita

    I’ve said it before. If you’re against same sex marriages, then don’t marry someone from the same sex.

  • Julie

    it isnt political, it isnt religious.
    It is a personal lifestyle.
    It is nothing the government has any business telling us we can or cannot do.

    Sure marraige is an institutuion recognized by the church.
    So that gives the church the right to tell people who arent christian what they can do?

    Seperation of Church and State for a reason.

    Stop gtting into other people’s business and focus on getting the state back on track. This is a non-issue in regards to what our politicians are supposed to be doing.

    This is just to garner votes for 2012

    • Larry

      Julie, everybody has a lifestyle. The only differnce between other lifestyles and the gay lifestyle is “MOST of the time, the gay lifestyle is not chosen”.

      • booboo

        Beg to differ in regards to you ‘chosen’ comment. Some people have a more violent personality, some people seem to have the desire to steal things, some people have the desire to drive their cars real fast. When they get caught the “I was born that way’ excuse doesn’t cut it. Acting on immoral or bad impulses is a ‘choice’.

        Whether it is a right or wrong choice is not mine to say. Being gay is a choice. If you think it’s wrong, you don’t give in to the desire. The lifestyle is a choice….period!!!

        • Ugh

          If this is the argument, which I don’t think it is, then straight is also a choice. In which case, you’re choosing to be straight. Therefore your decision isn’t any more important or right than anyone else’s. I doubt you’d agree with all of that… But you can’t have one way be a choice when the other way isn’t a choice. I would argue that neither is a choice, you are straight or gay and that’s the way it is.

          • booboo

            Are you born with a violent temper? Maybe. It is your choice to learn to control it.

            You are confusing Choice with Desire. The Choice is how we act. And the consequence is the result of our Choice.

            We are all born and learn different emotions throughout our lives. It is our responsibility to control them.

            • Ugh

              Desire is a feeling, choice is an action. I completely understand the difference between the two. The desire for someone of the same sex is a feeling, an emotion; it’s difficult to describe desire in a way that accurately reflects how it feels and what it is. This is the same desire a straight person feels for someone of the opposite sex. All people, straight or gay, choose to act on those desires.

              I’m saying the desire is innate. The choice is conscious. For all sexual orientations.

              • booboo

                Exactly what I was saying. Whether I am gay or not, I choose to act on it. Maybe I am gay and I just believe it is morally wrong. So…I control my desire. I didn’t say it was easy. Life is not always easy. But to do the right thing sometimes isn’t easy.

                So, it basically boils down to how a person feels morally. Again, I’m not saying right or wrong…I’m just saying the action is a choice.

                Should we make gay marriage legal? I don’t really care. It won’t affect me one way or the other. I’m not involved in the debate.

                • Nancy

                  if you vote………you’re involved

        • stace34

          When did you first find your self attracted to the same sex, but choose not to act upon that? If you did not make a choice to be straight then what makes you think someone makes achoice to be gay? When you can answer my question about not giving into your own gay feelings then I will take your arguement a little more seriously. Also there is a huge difference between breaking the law and falling in love and if you don’t realize that than I feel really sorry for you.

          • booboo

            If you’re attracted to a married person, do you act on it…or do you control yourself? Is it wrong to go after a married person? YES.

        • Amanda


          • booboo

            The closet is a choice.

            • Amanda

              So get out of it….

        • Tom


          If you are saying that the gay lifestyle is a choice then what you are saying that even you being straight for so many years could wake some morning and instead of the hots for your wife or husband you would have the hots for your neighbors wife or husband?

          And then there is the second question for social conservatives. Were you born nuts or did you choose to become nuts?

        • Larry

          Most Gays are born Gay, some chose to be gay.

          It has nothing to do with stealing cars.

    • Tom


      The social conservatives say that “Seperation of church and state” is myth because the consitution doesn’t use those “exact” words. Well it seems that about 75% of the country knows that is what it means.

  • stace34


    If your tired of big goverment then why would you say that government should be able to dictate who can and can not get married. That is government BIG enoungh to fit into the hearts, relationships and bedrooms of it’s people. That is the oposite of what a real small goverment conservative should be advocating. So you are really not against big government. This is the hipocracy of clainimg that people who would ban gay marriage also want small government. Goverment has no place dictating the relationships between consenting adults. That is intrustive and the very definition of BIG government.

  • Love

    Poor Kevin, so full of hate!!!!

  • ryan

    The government should give a civil union to ANYONE who wants it, gays and straights. Get your marriage certificate from your favorite religion. It’s just horrible they are born that way and don’t get the same rights as straight people.

    • Jake

      They do have the same rights. They can have a state-recognized marriage someone of the opposite sex. (The law does not require the marriage to be based on love or sexual attraction.) What you are describing is a new, different right that has not existed before: The right to a state recognized marriage to another person regardless of gender. The current right was based on family units primarily responsible for producing and raising children. This new right would be for the purpose of validating and subsidizing a new category of relationships that do not need validating or subsidizing.

      Same sex couples may marry in any fashion they choose, religious or not. The question is whether there is a benefit to the state recognizing the marriage. All of the non-financial components of state-recognized mariage are available to same sex partners through other means.

  • hmm

    Well the people will get to decide if the constitution is amended. If this poll is valid the issue will be voted on next year and the amendment will fail which will make it all the more easy to get marriage legalized for them.

  • hmm

    What do you have against Kool-aid? I drink it quite often and enjoy it, especially during the summer.

    • Tom


      LMAO! Good One!


    Ha Ha !

  • Uriah

    The poll was not taken of ‘likely voters’ which means nothing except those they called do not favor the ban. It doesn’t mean the ban won’t pass at the polls. Personally I don’t care if it passes or not but I wish these ‘poll takers’ would also release info on the poll such as who they called, #dems vs #repubs, are they likely to vote, etc. This is why polls vary so much and are used by the media in promoting their point of view.

  • Paul

    You’re tired of big government, yet you want the government to tell people how to live and who to marry? Reread my question a few times and then discuss.

    • Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski

      Here, here! Hypocrites.

  • Paul

    Oh, and also, you can’t say “I’m not a bigot” and then say “I hate gays” in the same paragraphs. Your hypocrisy is astounding

  • jeff

    the problem here is that all the conservatives believe that being homosexual is a choice? i would ask if there are any conservatives out there to answer this question; tell me your story about how you made the choice to be straight? and i’m not talking about your first sexual experience…..i am talking about the first time you were attracted to the opposite sex……….what was it inside you that drew you to be attracted to that sex? as it happens, my first crush was in the 4th grade. i can’t tell you what about that boy made me attracted to him…..it just happened? and it has never changed. i have never found a women sexually attractive. i’m not into morbidly obese people and i can’t really tell you why, just doesn’t do anything for me down there…..not even a wiggle. so just tell me how it’s a choice as to what we’re attracted to.

  • Liberals Suck

    haha Moron Liberals…. I love it because that is the correct definition. Liberals are the reason why we have such high gas prices today too. They screw everyting up.

    • Mike

      Please do tell us how Liberals raise gas prices…

    • Tom

      Liberals SucK

      Which party was in complete control of things from 2000 -2006? It was not the liberals it was the conservatives!

      And what does gas prices have to do with gay marriage anyway?

  • Sharon Bowers

    I never get polled. Probably because they hung up on me once because I wouldn’t give them the answers they were looking for.

  • kapulas

    Real republicans believe deeply in the sanctity of the open market and the free market capitalist system but don’t give a HOOT in H**L if gay people get married and believe equally deeply that the government has no business is this discussion. If the church won’t marry gays, fine, then don’t get married in that church. Marriage, and the bundle of legal rights it carries with it, is a secular decision, governed by secular laws, not religious ones.

    And to you Bible thumping idiots out there who would deny people the most basic of all human rights – to love and be loved by the one of your choice, remember this: Jesus himself would be voting “no” on this amendment.

  • Yelper

    Republicans are such wankers…. and lots are pretty GAY too…

  • KJS

    I’m 18-years old and will vote in the November 2012 election for the first time ever, and I plan on casting my ballot “yes” in favor of amending the Minnesota Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. I’m a conservative Christian, and my faith drives every decision that I make. I’m in favor of the ban on gay marriage, and here’s why:
    I believe that homosexuality is a sin – no better or no worse than any other sin. God created the world and everything in it, and it was so wonderfully and beautifully made, until sin entered the world through Man – and, because of that sin, Man is forever flawed and damned until Jesus Christ came to die for us. Homosexuality is just another way that people are falling from God’s grace through sin… but it is absolutely no worse a sin than stealing, murder, swearing, etc. My heart aches for people with homosexual tendencies, and I am just crying out to God for them. I feel that it is very important that we send a message to the future generations that this is not how humans are intended to be – how could it be? Children can be beared and families can be made through the gift of sexual intercourse – with one man and one woman; how it was intended to be, before sin came along.

    I have respect for the gay community. They stick up for what they believe in and I admire that. Gays are not monsters, not evil, and not worthless, like some of my fellow Christians proclaim when they spew the hate that is doing the opposite of what Jesus Christ would have done if he still was in his earthly body. Gays are people, just like the rest of us – but, I cannot condone their lifestyle choices and, for the sake of the future of our country and mankind, I feel that the government needs to step in and intervene. Thanks for listening to my thoughts.

    • stace34

      I am happy to read that you are perfect and without sin. But I don’t think that you should force others to do things based on your religion. This is not a theocracy. We have seen in other countries what happens when relition not fairness and equality rule government. If you actually believe in Jesus you will know it is his job to judge people, not yours. If you actually believe in the teachings of Christ you would know that he taught tolerance and to treat others the way you would like to be treated. So if you would not want others to dictate what relationships in your life are “valid” or “right” do not dictate that to another. Nothing about this ban is Christian. It is just fear of something that is different that what you want or believe.

    • Amanda


      I have to love your answer… go ahead and vote… but just keep in mind that 90% of all man kind are sinners. not just GAYS… since we all Fornicate, and that is a CAPITAL SIN… LUST! so if we are going to point fingers on who is a sinner, we will never end. but again, I respect your opinion, I will like people to respect mine and I know that you will not like it, same way you said you can’t condone my lifestyle…. well SEPARATE STATE FROM THE CHURCH

  • Ryan

    Sorry, if you think that gays should not be permitted to marry (in the eyes of the law, not a church), you are a bigot.

    It’s the same as saying, “I’m not a racist. I just don’t think that blacks should have the same rights as whites.”

  • Tom

    I am not surprised by that poll because of the age part. I do agree the younger the voter the less likely they will care . Where as the older the voter the more likely they will care. But you have too understand something about the older voter. They probably don’t think that gay woman or gay men were around in there but that is the farthest thing from the truth. There were gay people back in that era but they were in the closet because of how society back then viewed certain matters. But now the gay community is able too live more out in the open. This vote will be interesting if the younger voter comes out this amendment will fail. And if it fails I am sure if the GOP retain power they go around the voters and do it anyway.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Thursday Night Football

Listen Live