::Rolls Eyes::

Actually, PPP has a high REI index rating, with its polls being very close to the statistical average. They're generally within 1% of the actual and their liberal bias is within the range of error. Nate Silver does an excellent job of explaining how polls are rated, so you should look it up. PPP is probably the most accurate poll we'll get until very close to the election and even then, there aren't many better polls. PPP is better ranked than Gallup and far more accurate than Survey USA.

Of course, polls could be better. Pollsters would love to have a sample size of hundreds of thousands and give weight perfectly, but that isn't possible. If you think the poll is worthless, pick the phone next time and help us be more accurate.

Bob, how would your church and, in particular, Bishop Nienstedt, respond to your post?

Here's how: http://www.mncc.org/advocacy-areas/marriage-and-family/marriage-amendment/

As a lay leader in your church, how do you live at odds with the accepted belief structures and tenets of the church? And there is more than just "do unto others" in that mix of rules and dogma.

At some point don't you say "I am better fitted to this church (Unitarian, Episcopal, etc) over here."

I believe the One Man, One Woman Marriage Amendment is to keep other amendments popping up in the future that change the meaning of marriage between two partners. An example would be polygamy. I myself do not want to see something like this be brought down on our children. I know that I would not be happy sharing my husband with another woman because I want to be his number one and do not want families divided, etc. Once the door is open-we may not be able to close it. If you vote YES, this will prevent new bills from opening doors to new issued that most have not thought of yet, but will.
It does not affect two member partnerships in any form, but that it how people are making it out to be due to misunderstanding.
Government does not tell us who to love but putting some restrictions on marriage is going to keep a sixteen year old daughter from marrying a person who does not have her best intentions at heart because she is not mature enough to see it.

And THAT Matt is why young people are quitting church all together. Because, like Luther, they are basically being excommunicated for holding views in opposition to church "tenets." I guess if the church doesn't care about cutting off its nose to spite it's face, then fine, but just allowing differing opinions in a church doesn't mean the church has to change its rules or love for members. In fact, Jesus loved a heck of a lot of people the Pharisees threw away.

Wah wah wah, we're being mean to the gays, cry cry cry. I will be voting for the amendment and so will most Minnesotans. I moved here from Massachusetts and saw the damage the radical gay activists did to my state, and will not let it happen again here. Sorry!

Debbie: Pssst....your intelligence is showing.

Did you move from MA to MN so you could live somewhere more conservative? If so....fail. You might want to try somewhere further south. Alabama might be the place for you.

Who relevant to this conversation has minority status?

You are not even a real minister, which is obvious by your trashing of anything moral. We should destroy marriage just for the money? Are you joking? No wonder our society is falling apart, we have people like you running around pretending to be ministers who will marry anything. Will you let me marry 3 men as well? Why not? It doesn't affect anyone else's marriage, right? How about my pets? Doesn't affect anyone else!

Your comment is laughable and frankly, quite terrifying. Good thing you aren't an actual church leader with real power.

Are YOU joking Debbie? The WHOLE POINT of marriage for hundreds of years was SOLELY about money!! Marriage was a way of passing on wealth and securing goods.

Well sorry but you will just have to deal with it. Every law discriminates in some way, sir. Most Americans believe marriage should be between one man and one woman and that's the way it is. It isn't going to change. Move on to another issue.

Debbie, you can say that a slight majority of Americans believe this, but please stop saying "most" because clearly 43-48% is NOT most. It may end up being a small majority, sure, but absolutely not most.

Also, "it isn't going to change." Good luck on that. I look forward to the day when you are on the opposite side of "most" because it sure will change.

Deal with it? If the law passes, then I will. If it fails, will *you* deal with it? Probably not.

The perception of same sex marriage is probably going change over time, just as every other discriminatory, popular belief has in our democratic history.

I'm sorry, but the state of Minnesota will most likely not be destroyed by fire and brimstone if the ammendment fails.

Emily, are you having a hard time understanding "most"???
If 48% favor it, 43% dont favor it and 9% have no opinion, MOST favor it.

In your desire to spew at the "haters" you confused MOST with Majority

This is misleading Angela. Leaving it blank is a NO vote, true. However, when you say "blank or no is for changing the amendment" that makes no sense. If people vote against this amendment or opt out and leave it blank, and the amendment is defeated, that means the law STILL stays as is. NOTHING changes.
A YES vote CHANGES things, as it more permanently (though as one person pointed out above, never indefinitely) makes same-sex marriage MORE illegal by inappropriately ingraining it in our Constitution.

It blows my mind that independents support this measure. Live and let live. Please tell me the Libertarians are against it... I know the Constitutionalists are (or at least the guy at the fair said they are).

Yes, Libertarians are opposed to change HOWEVER, we are more opposed to activist judges changing laws to suit their agenda. The amendment is mostly to prevent liberal judges from changing laws to better suit their perception of how the world should be. Even after voting gay marriage down in California, judges are still changing laws however they desire. Libertarians dont care either way if there is gay marriage or not, but they are 100% judges making it up as the decide to go along.

So what if legislators want to change the law based on the changing needs and wants of their constituents? Judges don't even need to get involved.

And by the way, there are activist judges on both sides. How about the conservative judges who want to use their decisions to change abortion laws? How is that any different?

Advocates of the amendment, in my understanding, don't want ANYONE to change the law in the future, so they want their version of "right/wrong" embedded in the Constitution.

There are definitely conservative activists but not nearly as many. Except, I am unfamiliar with any state that has banned abortion all together.

The real answer is with the government coming up with a legal "civil union". Something that allows 2 people to legally unite and become legally responsible for each other. I have no idea how this would work but if you leave the marriage out of it all together and allow 2 people to unite, it could save a lot of problems. Even brothers or sisters could unite. Then all the legal responsibilities and tax issues could be resolved. Of course the gays would lose the "marriage" word but they can still be legally brought together. If the gays are fighting only for the "marriage" word, then that is a different arugment. To me, if a gay NEEDS to have the marriage word in his civil uniting with a loved one, then they are just looking to argue and are not truly looking for a solution. I would compare that argument to a boy demanding he get to play girls hockey. Or a girl demanding she get to join the boyscouts.

As always, it is just my opinion.

So if the government was ONLY involved with civil unions, then does that mean all legally joined people (straight included) would just have a civil union? And religious institutions (or other non-gov't groups) would be responsible for "marriages"? If that is what you argue for, then we are on the same page. If gov’t is going to provide benefits through the vehicle of marriage and not all couples can get those, that is not acceptable. However, if a civil union is what imparted those benefits and marriage was left to the private/personal/religious realm, fine by me. Right now, a civil union doesn’t provide all the benefits, so we have a “separate but unequal” situation.

Problem is, seems to me that amendment supporters only want to "protect" the word "marriage" which they think is some sacred thing they must fight to the death for, nevermind that marriage was originally created primarily as a way of transferring wealth, long before Christians ever came along. Forget that many care little about so many other things dealing with creating healthy marriages and families. They just want to protect a WORD. Seems like they should be going to the Patents and Trademarks folks instead of the Constitution.

As for abortion, you're right, no state has banned it, because of Roe v Wade, but PLENTY of politicians push for Supreme Court Judges who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, the law of the land for several decades now, so they can get their way at a state or lower court level.

Jennifer, all people CAN get married. They just have to follow the guidelines for marriage that our society has established long ago. Right now marriage has one definition...its between a male and female. If you want to swing open the door and make marriage mean nothing by allowing any combination of sexual partners to marry, then that just destroys marriage and leaves it with no meaning or purpose anymore.

This has nothing to do with "fairness." The law is already fair. What is has to do with is a small segment of the population trying to trash our values and most important social institutions, but the voters won't let it happen.

Debbie, keep your definition, that is fine. But let the government recognize civil unions for all, and then get out of the business of defining words. That way you can define marriage any way you want. Separate Church and State. Today you might like the way government helps your cause, tomorrow you may not.

Debbie wrote: "What is has to do with is a small segment of the population trying to trash our values and most important social institutions."

Well, since over forty percent of the population appears to be against the amendment, I don't believe it is a "small segment of the population". How in the world will keeping our Constitution the way it is "trash our values and most important social institutions"?

Let's just say gay marriage does eventually become legal, I again ask you, how would this trash "your" values? How would it change "your" marriage?

Angela, I'm not sure you are explaining this correctly. No one is voting to change the amendment. We vote on the amendment as written. That said, we are voting to change the CONSTITUTION.

If you leave it blank, it will be counted as a NO vote stating you DO NOT wish to have the Constitution changed to say that marriage is defined as one man and one woman. This is already the law, but supporters want to make it part of our Constitution. So, if enough people vote no or leave it blank, and the amendment fails, life stays EXACTLY how it is today. Not a single thing changes. Gay marriage will not be legal. Gay and lesbian couples will gain nothing in terms of benefits.

At this stage in the election, this poll is the best we'll get. Minnesota, while getting closer and closer to being a swing state, is not considered "in play" this election and so pollsters look elsewhere. We will get better polls later, but for now 824 people weighted to match the voting demographics allows an accurate poll.

The small sample does result in a high range of error, but little can be done about that. If you want better polls, answer your phone more. Lack of people answering the phone is the number one problem with polling.

I never give a answer to a a pollster. If you want to know the results, check it on the day after the election. Anything before, doesn't help.

I don't what side you're on for this issue, but both want and need polling data. It is of vital importance in deciding what to focus on, where to have ads and countless other things.

For example, during a presidential election, candidates don't pick speeches, events and messages at random. They're specifically tailored to win necessary states. The reason we don't see much action in Minnesota is because we don't poll as a swing state. Maybe you don't care about answering the polls, but for a second believe they aren't important.

Speaking of hateful is it appropriate the vote "no" team is damaging property and signs of those who are expressing their right to have an opinion? The real intimidation in this election is definetelly from the left.....

Seeing that my "Vote No" sign has been stolen twice now along with every other sign on the block and that MN United organizers have confirmed that such vandalism is very common this year, I don't think we should be pointing fingers. I have no idea of what property damage you're speaking of. Neither campaign is directing the damaging of signs and both condemn it.

As for intimidation, I volunteer regularly with MN United. I don't intimidate voters, I remain polite at all times and I help everyone understand the amendment, even if it means they will vote yes. But I have received a death threat over the phone, am often told I will burn in hell and had people attempt to physically intimidate me at the State Fair. Its hard to keep calling after someone tells you their going to come and kill me and my family, but it only gives me another reason to make sure this fails. The side who wants me dead cannot be the right side.