From Surf Wiki (app.surf) — the open knowledge base

2012 Minnesota Amendment 1

none

Field	Value
country	Minnesota
flag_year	1983
name	Minnesota Amendment 1
notes	Sources:
title	Minnesota Marriage Amendment
yes	1,399,916
no	1,510,434
blank	40,430
total	2,910,350
turnoutpct	76.42
map
mapdivision	County
{{legend	#2B2457	90–100%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#28497C	80–90%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#47729E	70–80%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#7D9CBB	60–70%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#B6C8D9	50–60%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#32320C	90–100%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#5D5D2D	80–90%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#8B8B54	70–80%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#BCBC83	60–70%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#DEDEBD	50–60%	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#EBEEED	Tie	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend	#808080	No data	border	1px #AAAAAA solid}}
date	November 6, 2012

Yes No Other Minnesota Amendment 1 (also called Minnesota Marriage Amendment or Minnesota Gay Marriage Amendment) 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 51.19% of voters.

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. The proposed amendment was on the ballot on November 6, 2012. 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. 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. 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.

Immediately after the Minnesota legislature voted to put Amendment 1 on the ballot, OutFront Minnesota and Project 515, two groups working for LGBTQ rights in the state, formed Minnesotans United for All Families – the main campaign organization that would work to defeat the amendment. Minnesotans United was chaired by Richard Carlbom, the future chair of the DFL. 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. 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. The board and staff of the campaign reflected the same kind of diversity as its coalition partners and even included prominent Republicans. 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.

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. 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. 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

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

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 the proposed Amendment and others asking more general questions.

Date of opinion poll	Conducted by	Sample size	For amendment	Against amendment	Undecided/Other	Margin of error	Question
nowrap	May 2–5, 2011	Star Tribune	806 adults	39%	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	SurveyUSA	552 RV	51%	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	Public Policy Polling	1,179 voters	46%	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	St. Cloud State University Survey	626 LV	43.6%	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	Princeton Survey Research Associates International	807 adults	48%	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	SurveyUSA	543 RV	46%	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	Public Policy Polling	1,236 voters	48%	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	SurveyUSA	542 RV	47%	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	Public Policy Polling	973 voters	43%	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	SurveyUSA	552 LV	52%	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	SurveyUSA	551 LV	50%	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	Public Policy Polling	824 LV	48%	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	Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, Inc.	800 LV	49%	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	Public Policy Polling	937 LV	46%	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	SurveyUSA	550 LV	47%	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	St. Cloud State University Survey	600 LV	44%	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	Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, Inc.	800 LV	48%	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	SurveyUSA	574 LV	48%	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	SurveyUSA	556 LV	47%	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	Public Policy Polling	1,164 LV	45%	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

Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman

County breakdown

County	No	Votes	Yes	Votes
Aitkin	38.2%	3,428	61.8%	5,699
Anoka	49.4%	90,468	50.6%	94,690
Becker	37.1%	5,848	62.9%	10,364
Beltrami	48.9%	10,563	51.1%	11,334
Benton	44.6%	8,606	55.4%	10,943
Big Stone	32.9%	887	67.1%	1,888
Blue Earth	54.2%	18,291	45.8%	15,796
Brown	33.6%	4,604	66.4%	9,312
Carlton	48.1%	8,758	51.9%	9,632
Carver	49.9%	25,953	50.1%	26,552
Cass	38.1%	5,996	61.9%	10,041
Chippewa	36.9%	2,252	63.1%	3,944
Chisago	43.1%	12,459	56.9%	16,815
Clay	49.5%	13,903	50.5%	14,652
Clearwater	29.1%	1,168	70.9%	3,000
Cook	60.1%	1,978	39.9%	1,334
Cottonwood	30.0%	1,759	70.0%	4,143
Crow Wing	40.2%	13,770	59.8%	20,954
Dakota	55.4%	125,705	44.6%	103,250
Dodge	41.4%	4,199	58.6%	6,096
Douglas	36.4%	7,474	63.6%	13,436
Faribault	35.1%	2,668	64.9%	5,046
Fillmore	43.4%	4,609	56.6%	6,196
Freeborn	40.0%	6,518	60.0%	10,097
Goodhue	47.6%	12,079	52.4%	13,583
Grant	36.1%	1,226	63.9%	2,241
Hennepin	65.3%	433,803	34.7%	237,084
Houston	42.3%	4,256	57.7%	6,066
Hubbard	38.1%	4,310	61.9%	7,185
Isanti	39.0%	7,742	61.0%	12,391
Itasca	44.3%	10,412	55.7%	13,392
Jackson	31.2%	1,665	68.8%	3,785
Kanabec	35.5%	2,828	64.5%	5,281
Kandiyohi	37.2%	7,774	62.8%	13,523
Kittson	33.6%	780	66.4%	1,629
Koochiching	46.2%	2,910	53.8%	3,504
Lac qui Parle	32.3%	1,257	67.7%	2,711
Lake	49.0%	3,268	51.0%	3,496
Lake of the Woods	36.1%	769	63.9%	1,436
Le Sueur	42.4%	6,163	57.6%	8,559
Lincoln	29.8%	879	70.2%	2,211
Lyon	38.0%	4,628	62.0%	7,725
McLeod	34.3%	6,218	65.7%	12,253
Mahnomen	38.6%	807	61.4%	1,350
Marshall	28.2%	1,119	71.8%	3,541
Martin	32.4%	3,466	67.6%	7,465
Meeker	35.5%	4,264	64.5%	7,937
Mille Lacs	39.3%	5,053	60.7%	8,004
Morrison	32.1%	5,228	67.9%	11,424
Mower	43.2%	7,818	56.8%	10,603
Murray	29.0%	1,337	71.0%	3,419
Nicollet	53.0%	9,595	47.0%	8,670
Nobles	25.7%	2,035	74.3%	6,393
Norman	37.0%	1,132	63.0%	2,050
Olmsted	51.0%	39,053	49.0%	38,525
Otter Tail	33.5%	10,202	66.5%	21,180
Pennington	38.6%	2,444	61.4%	4,030
Pine	37.8%	5,216	62.2%	8,756
Pipestone	24.4%	1,092	75.6%	3,539
Polk	35.4%	4,951	64.6%	9,547
Pope	36.5%	2,242	63.5%	3,991
Ramsey	63.5%	172,197	36.5%	102,069
Red Lake	32.3%	617	67.7%	1,356
Redwood	30.5%	2,330	69.5%	5,455
Renville	33.7%	2,549	66.3%	5,145
Rice	53.7%	17,025	46.3%	15,010
Rock	26.6%	1,218	73.4%	3,579
Roseau	30.1%	2,115	69.9%	5,185
Scott	51.1%	35,951	48.9%	35,212
Sherburne	43.7%	19,953	56.3%	26,306
Sibley	31.3%	2,379	68.7%	5,404
St. Louis	55.9%	63,663	44.1%	51,272
Stearns	47.0%	36,309	53.0%	41,849
Steele	44.4%	8,339	55.6%	10,685
Stevens	44.3%	2,463	55.7%	3,163
Swift	39.1%	1,847	60.9%	3,293
Todd	28.8%	3,311	71.2%	8,448
Traverse	33.8%	602	66.2%	1,238
Wabasha	40.8%	4,698	59.2%	7,011
Wadena	30.4%	1,981	69.6%	4,769
Waseca	40.2%	3,873	59.8%	5,877
Washington	55.3%	77,108	44.7%	63,767
Watonwan	36.4%	1,828	63.6%	3,295
Wilkin	31.4%	967	68.6%	2,222
Winona	53.0%	14,132	47.0%	12,884
Wright	44.0%	29,259	56.0%	38,157
Yellow Medicine	34.5%	1,835	65.5%	3,572

References

[https://electionresults.sos.mn.gov/Results/AmendmentResultsStatewide?ersElectionId=1&scenario=state Results for Constitutional Amendments 2012 Minnesota]
[https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/data-maps/historical-voter-turnout-statistics/ Historical Voter Turnout Statistics]
Zachary, Alexander. (3 October 2012). "Weathering the Storms of the Minnesota Marriage Amendment". [[HuffPost]].
"Minnesota to vote on gay-marriage ban". [[The Washington Times]].
(November 7, 2012). "2012 Referendum General Election Results".
(May 22, 2011). "Voters to determine the future of marriage, House decides". Star Tribune.
"SF1308 Status in Senate for Legislative Session 87: Constitutional amendment to recognize marriage solely between one man and one woman". Minnesota State Legislature.
"Minnesota Secretary Of State - Home".
(7 October 2012). "Marriage amendment: The archbishop draws the line". Star-Tribune.
Helgeson, Baird. (18 October 2012). "Minnesota's marriage amendment fight funded by Catholics across U.S.". Star Tribune.
(November 9, 2012). "EIGHTEEN MONTHS TO HISTORY: How the Minnesota marriage amendment was defeated -- money, passion, allies".
Moylan, Martin. (June 14, 2012). "General Mills opposes marriage amendment".
(September 3, 2012). "Businesses drawn into fight over marriage amendment".
(26 November 2012). "What happened here? Three observations about Minnesota's marriage vote".
(February 17, 2013). "OPINION EXCHANGE - Minnesota lawmakers won't be rushed on gay marriage".
Louwagie, Pam. (9 April 2012). "Obama weighs in against Minnesota's marriage ballot". Star Tribune.
Gervino, Tony. (19 October 2012). "The Punter Makes His Point". New York Times.
[http://www.startribune.com/politics/121725399.html Minnesota Poll: Majority oppose gay marriage ban] {{webarchive. link. (2012-08-18)
"SurveyUSA News Poll #18243".
"Minnesotans like Dayton, split on gay marriage".
"Annual Minnesota Statewide Survey Fall 2011 – Findings Report".
[http://www.startribune.com/politics/133367088.html Minnesota Poll results: Marriage Amendment] {{webarchive. link. (2012-11-08)
"Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #18726".
"Dayton Sees Strong Approval in Minnesota".
"SurveyUSA News Poll #18953".
(June 5, 2012). "Minnesotans' opposition to marriage amendment growing".
"SurveyUSA Election Poll #19394".
"SurveyUSA Election Poll #19612".
(September 12, 2012). "Minnesota split on marriage amendment".
(September 23, 2012). "MINNESOTA POLL RESULTS: Marriage amendment".
"Minnesota marriage amendment narrowly trails".
"SurveyUSA Election Poll #19873".
Hawkins, Beth. (26 October 2012). "St. Cloud State poll shows slender lead for opponents of marriage amendment".
Frank, Stephen I. "FALL STATEWIDE SURVEY OCTOBER, 2012". St. cloud State University.
(October 28, 2012). "Breakdown of poll findings on marriage amendment".
(October 28, 2012). "How the poll was conducted".
"SurveyUSA Election Poll #20056".
"SurveyUSA Election Poll #20105".
"Obama up 8 in Minnesota, amendments trail for passage".
"Source for Popular Vote data: Minnesota Secretary of State. Results for Constitutional Amendments, Minnesota Secretary of State".
link. (2012-12-11)

Info: Wikipedia Source

This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page.

lgbtq-rights-in-minnesota 2012-in-lgbtq-history same-sex-marriage-ballot-measures-in-the-united-states 2012-minnesota-elections 2012-ballot-measures-in-the-united-states minnesota-ballot-measures u.s.-state-constitutional-amendments lgbtq-history-in-minnesota

Want to explore this topic further?

Ask Mako anything about 2012 Minnesota Amendment 1 — get instant answers, deeper analysis, and related topics.

Research with Mako

Free with your Surf account

Content sourced from Wikipedia, available under CC BY-SA 4.0.

This content may have been generated or modified by AI. CloudSurf Software LLC is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of AI-generated content. Always verify important information from primary sources.

Report