MN: Plurality Say Let Surpreme Court Decide

For awhile I have saved a link* about a poll on the topic "Same-Sex Marriage in Minnesota" conducted by, and reported by, the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Here was the question:

As you may know, the Iowa Supreme Court recently legalized same-sex marriage in that state by declaring unconstitutional a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Do you believe Minnesota should pass a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage or legalize same-sex marriage or make no changes in its marriage laws and leave it to the Minnesota Supreme Court to interpret the state Constitution?

And here are the summary results:

33% Prohibit same-sex marriage
25% Legalize same-sex marriage
35% Leave it to the MN Supreme Court
6% Don’t know/refused

I am not surprised by the one-third who think it should be prohibited, nor by the smallish quarter who want it legalized.

I am truly surprised by the more than one-third who chose "leave it to the Minnesota Supreme Court". Even more remarkably this one-third stays pretty solidly near one-third across all the demographic groups that the Tribune could identify.

My goodness but we have been subjected to an awful lot of disingenuous haranguing over the issue of courts deciding the question of marriage equality in the states, and a number of very loud people have tried desperately to convince anyone who would listen that letting the courts decide is some support of unconstitutional tyranny that, of course, it most definitely is not.

But here we have a plurality of Minnesotans who quite evidently feel that deciding the issue is a perfectly reasonable, even desirable thing for their supreme court to do.

There you go: yet another bit of democracy in action that I haven't heard being applauded by any self-righteous, self-proclaimed protectors of liberty and the American way.

I am applauding.
_____
* Thanks to Timothy Kincaid, "Minnesota Poll on Marraige", Box Turtle Bulletin, 1 May 2009.

Posted on May 8, 2009 at 15.51 by jns · Permalink
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 02.40
    Permalink

    I'm surprised by that result too. I suspect at least some who chose the court
    figured the issue will wind up there anyway. Some are probably punting, not
    wanting to say the don't know, yet not wanting to come down on one side or
    the other.

    You're right that it's reasonable for the court to decide, but I'm not sure that
    equates with democracy. I think a referendum would be more democratic.

  2. Written by jns
    on Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 10.16
    Permalink

    I think you're right, SW. Certainly a referendum would be more democratic, but letting the court decide is certainly American and constitutional. Our US government is not so extremely democratic, and that often seems like it was a good choice; a bit of distance and time for deliberation between the people and the decision helps mute the tyranny of the majority.

  3. Written by S.W. Anderson
    on Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 20.03
    Permalink

    ". . .bit of distance and time for deliberation between the people and the decision helps mute the tyranny of the majority."

    That's a really good observation.

    BTW, with DeLay and Cheney out of it our government is a lot more democratic than it's been for some time.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply

To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.

I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.