2012 Minnesota Amendment 1 Explained

Country:Minnesota
Flag Year:1983
Minnesota Amendment 1
Notes:Sources: [1] [2]
Minnesota Marriage Amendment
Yes:1,399,916
No:1,510,434
Blank:40,430
Total:2,910,350
Turnoutpct:76.42
Mapdivision:County
Mapcaption:YesNoOther
Date:November 6, 2012

Minnesota Amendment 1 (also called Minnesota Marriage Amendment[3] or Minnesota Gay Marriage Amendment[4]) was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment proposed to ban marriage between same-sex couples in the state of Minnesota, that appeared on the ballot on November 6, 2012. It was rejected by 51.90% of voters.[5]

Legislative approval

On May 11, 2011, the Minnesota Senate passed a bill to place a proposed amendment to the state constitution on the ballot that would ban same-sex marriage. The vote was 37–27, with all Republicans and one Democrat voting for the amendment. An identical bill was passed by the House on May 21; the vote was 70–62 with two Democrats and all but four Republicans voting for the amendment.[6] The proposed amendment was on the ballot on November 6, 2012.[7] The proposed amendment read: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota." It did not refer to civil unions or domestic partnerships.[8] The question being presented to voters on the ballot read: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Support and opposition

In March 2012, Minnesota's Roman Catholic bishops had an audience with Pope Benedict XVI, who told them that preserving the traditional definition of marriage was a priority. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis organized leaders of different religious denominations in support of the amendment and committed his own church to spend $650,000 on behalf of its passage. In September he joined other religious leaders in a demonstration in support of the amendment at the State Capitol.[9] The Minnesota Catholic Conference Marriage Defense Fund contributed more than half the $1.2 million raised by Minnesota for Marriage, the principal organization supporting the amendment, including $130,000 from the Knights of Columbus, a national Catholic organization.[10]

Immediately after the Minnesota legislature voted to put Amendment 1 on the ballot, Outfront Minnesota and Project 515, two groups working for LGBT rights in the state, formed Minnesotans United for All Families – the main campaign organization that would work to defeat the amendment. Over the course of a year and a half, Minnesotans United would raise and spend over $12 million, more than double the pro-amendment side.[11] More importantly, the Minnesotans United campaign formed a coalition group of allies with almost 700 member organizations that included political parties, labor unions, veterans, civic groups and businesses like General Mills.[12] [13] The board and staff of the campaign reflected the same kind of diversity as its coalition partners and even included prominent Republicans.[11] Drawing on lessons learned from past campaigns in other states, Minnesotans United did not cede the religious ground – it hired a faith director to reach out to communities of faith, and more than 100 of its coalition members were churches and other faith groups from around the state.[14]

The centerpiece of the Minnesotans United for All Families campaign became its huge grassroots effort to have conversations with the voters about marriage. Rather than focus on equal rights and fairness, as was done in previous campaigns, Minnesotans United and its thousands of volunteers, had personal conversations over the phones and face to face about how marriage had the same importance and meaning for both straight and same-sex couples.[14] This messaging strategy, which was also used in the campaign's ad campaign, helped move conflicted voters and resulted in Minnesota being the first state, after 30 attempts, to defeat a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.[11] Minnesotans United is likely the biggest grassroots campaign in the state's history, having had 27,000 volunteers knock on over 400,000 doors and make over 900,000 phone calls in the final eight days of the campaign[15]

The Minnesota arm of President Obama's presidential re-election campaign announced his opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment in April.[16] Advertisements in opposition to the amendment also featured Minnesota Vikings football player Chris Kluwe.[17]

Opinion polls

Various public opinion surveys of Minnesota residents have asked questions regarding same-sex marriage. The questions vary, with some surveys referring directly to proposed Amendment and others asking more general questions.

Date of opinion pollConducted bySample sizewidth=5% For amendmentAgainst amendmentUndecided/OtherMargin of errorQuestion
nowrap May 2–5, 2011[18] Star Tribune806 adults39%55%7% (Don't know/refused to answer)±4.7%"Please tell me if you would favor or oppose amending the Minnesota constitution to ban same-sex marriage."
nowrap May 23–24, 2011[19] SurveyUSA552 RV51%40%2% not sure
8% not vote
±4.3%"If an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution were on the ballot, that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, would you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?"
nowrap May 27–30, 2011[20] Public Policy Polling1,179 voters46%47%7% not sure±2.9%"Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap October 17–26, 2011[21] St. Cloud State University Survey626 LV43.6%47.4%9%±5%"Should the Minnesota constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap November 2–3, 2011[22] Princeton Survey Research Associates International807 adults48%43%8% (Don't know/refused to answer)±4.4%"Would you favor or oppose amending the Minnesota constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman?"
nowrap November 2–7, 2011[23] SurveyUSA543 RV46%40%4% not sure
10% not vote
±4.3%"If an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution were on the ballot, that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, would you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?"
nowrap January 21–22, 2012[24] Public Policy Polling1,236 voters48%44%8% not sure±2.8%"Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap January 31 – February 2, 2012[25] SurveyUSA542 RV47%39%4% not sure
10% not vote
±4.3%"An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?"
nowrap May 31 – June 3, 2012[26] Public Policy Polling973 voters43%49%7% not sure±3.1%"Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap July 17–19, 2012[27] SurveyUSA552 LV52%37%6% not sure
5% not vote
±4.3%"An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?"
nowrap September 6–9, 2012[28] SurveyUSA551 LV50%43%8%±4.3%"Also on the ballot is a ballot measure about marriage. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap September 10–11, 2012[29] Public Policy Polling824 LV48%47%5% not sure±3.4%"Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap September 17–19, 2012[30] Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, Inc.800 LV49%47%4%±3.5%"Another [amendment on the November ballot] asks "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in Minnesota?" If the election were held today, would you vote: "YES", in favor of the amendment; "NO", against the amendment."
nowrap October 5–8, 2012[31] Public Policy Polling937 LV46%49%5% not sure
1% won't vote
±3.2%"Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap October 12–14, 2012[32] SurveyUSA550 LV47%46%7%±4.3%"Also on the ballot is a ballot measure about marriage. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap October 15–21, 2012[33] [34] St. Cloud State University Survey600 LV44%51%5%±5%"The second proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution asks "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman be valid or recognized as marriage in Minnesota?" If you were to vote today would you vote for the amendment, vote against the amendment, or not vote on this issue?"
nowrap October 23–25, 2012[35] [36] Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, Inc.800 LV48%47%5%±3.5%"Another ballot question asks "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in Minnesota?" If the election were held today, would you vote: YES in favor of the amendment; NO against the amendment"
nowrap October 26–28, 2012[37] SurveyUSA574 LV48%47%5%±4.2%"Also on the ballot is a ballot measure about marriage. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap November 1–3, 2012[38] SurveyUSA556 LV47%48%5%±4.2%"Also on the ballot is a ballot measure about marriage. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
nowrap November 2–3, 2012[39] Public Policy Polling1,164 LV45%52%3% not sure
0% won't vote
±2.9%"Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Results

County breakdown

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. https://electionresults.sos.mn.gov/Results/AmendmentResultsStatewide?ersElectionId=1&scenario=state Results for Constitutional Amendments 2012 Minnesota
  2. https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/data-maps/historical-voter-turnout-statistics/ Historical Voter Turnout Statistics
  3. Web site: Weathering the Storms of the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. Alexander. Zachary. 3 October 2012. Huff Post. 24 February 2019.
  4. News: Minnesota to vote on gay-marriage ban. The Washington Times. 24 February 2019.
  5. Web site: 2012 Referendum General Election Results. Uselectionatlas.org. November 7, 2012.
  6. News: Voters to determine the future of marriage, House decides. May 22, 2011. Star Tribune.
  7. Web site: SF1308 Status in Senate for Legislative Session 87: Constitutional amendment to recognize marriage solely between one man and one woman . Minnesota State Legislature . June 10, 2012.
  8. Web site: Minnesota Secretary Of State - Home. Sos.state.mn.us. 24 February 2019.
  9. News: French. Rose . Helgeson. Baird . Marriage amendment: The archbishop draws the line . 25 October 2012. Star-Tribune. 7 October 2012.
  10. News: Helgeson . Baird . Minnesota's marriage amendment fight funded by Catholics across U.S. . 25 October 2012. Star Tribune. 18 October 2012.
  11. Web site: EIGHTEEN MONTHS TO HISTORY: How the Minnesota marriage amendment was defeated -- money, passion, allies. Eric. Ringham. Sasha. Aslanian. Mprnews.org. November 9, 2012 . 24 February 2019.
  12. Web site: General Mills opposes marriage amendment. Martin. Moylan. Mprnews.org. June 14, 2012 . 24 February 2019.
  13. Web site: Businesses drawn into fight over marriage amendment. Star Tribune. 24 February 2019.
  14. Web site: What happened here? Three observations about Minnesota's marriage vote. 26 November 2012. MinnPost.com. 24 February 2019.
  15. Web site: OPINION EXCHANGE - Minnesota lawmakers won't be rushed on gay marriage. Star Tribune. 24 February 2019.
  16. News: Louwagie. Pam. Obama weighs in against Minnesota's marriage ballot. 25 October 2012. Star Tribune. 9 April 2012. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20130127012951/http://www.startribune.com/politics/146746145.html. 27 January 2013.
  17. News: Gervino. Tony. The Punter Makes His Point. 25 October 2012. New York Times. 19 October 2012.
  18. http://www.startribune.com/politics/121725399.html Minnesota Poll: Majority oppose gay marriage ban
  19. Web site: SurveyUSA News Poll #18243. Surveyusa.com. 24 February 2019.
  20. Web site: Minnesotans like Dayton, split on gay marriage. Publicpolicypolling.com. 24 February 2019.
  21. Web site: Annual Minnesota Statewide Survey Fall 2011 – Findings Report. Media1.stcloudstate.edu. 24 February 2019.
  22. http://www.startribune.com/politics/133367088.html Minnesota Poll results: Marriage Amendment
  23. Web site: Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #18726. Surveyusa.com. 24 February 2019.
  24. Web site: Dayton Sees Strong Approval in Minnesota. Publicpolicypolling.com. 24 February 2019.
  25. Web site: SurveyUSA News Poll #18953. Surveyusa.com. 24 February 2019.
  26. Web site: Minnesotans' opposition to marriage amendment growing. Publicpolicypolling.com. June 5, 2012 . 24 February 2019.
  27. Web site: SurveyUSA Election Poll #19394. Surveyusa.com. 24 February 2019.
  28. Web site: SurveyUSA Election Poll #19612. Surveyusa.com. 24 February 2019.
  29. Web site: Minnesota split on marriage amendment. Publicpolicypolling.com. September 12, 2012 . 24 February 2019.
  30. Web site: MINNESOTA POLL RESULTS: Marriage amendment. Star Tribune. 24 February 2019.
  31. Web site: Minnesota marriage amendment narrowly trails. Publicpolicypolling.com. 24 February 2019.
  32. Web site: SurveyUSA Election Poll #19873. Surveyusa.com. 24 February 2019.
  33. Web site: St. Cloud State poll shows slender lead for opponents of marriage amendment. 26 October 2012. MinnPost.com. 24 February 2019.
  34. Web site: FALL STATEWIDE SURVEY OCTOBER, 2012. Minnpost.com. 24 February 2019.
  35. Web site: Breakdown of poll findings on marriage amendment. Star Tribune. 24 February 2019.
  36. Web site: How the poll was conducted. Star Tribune. 24 February 2019.
  37. Web site: SurveyUSA Election Poll #20056. Surveyusa.com. 24 February 2019.
  38. Web site: SurveyUSA Election Poll #20105. Surveyusa.com. 24 February 2019.
  39. Web site: Obama up 8 in Minnesota, amendments trail for passage. Publicpolicypolling.com. 24 February 2019.
  40. http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/ENR/Results/AmendmentResultsCounty/1?questionid=140 Results for Constitutional Amendments