Trouble in Bachmann-Land... For an Anti-Gay Amendment, That Is

As a Minnesota state lawmaker, Michelle Bachmann pushed for an amendment to the state constitution that would punish gay and lesbian families by placing marriage beyond reach of a state law or court decision.

That amendment never advanced before Bachmann moved on to become a federal lawmaker, but it's now poised to go before voters in 2012. Though Bachmann has clammed up about gays since starting her run for the GOP nomination in next year's presidential race, many see the anti-gay ballot initiative as a legacy of her efforts.

To date, voters in 31 states have put anti-gay amendments into their constitutions, with the express intention of denying same-sex couples the opportunity to marry. In some cases, the amendments are so anti-gay that they also deny gay families lesser legal protections such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

GLBT equality advocates around the nation, heartened by the way gays and their families have rapidly gained widespread acceptance in recent years, hope to se Minnesota voters make a different kind of history by categorically rejecting the anti-gay ballot initiative. If the results of a recent survey conducted at the Minnesota State Fair is any indication, that may well turn out to be the case.

The Minnesota House of Representatives State Fair Poll asked Minnesotans how they felt about an array of issues, reported CityPages on Sept. 6. Among the issues the survey asked about was the anti-gay amendment. Fairgoers were unequivocal in their response.

"If the State Fair is an accurate cross-section of Minnesota voters, then the gay marriage ban is going to go down, and go down hard," the article reported.

A record 2,549 people approached the survey's booth and asked for a copy of the survey, the article said. The second question on the form asked, "Should the state constitution be amended to define marriage as 'only a union of one man and one woman?' This question will be on the November 2012 ballot."

"The answer, by a wide margin, is 'No,' " the article said. "Actually it was more like 'No!' "

30 percent of respondents agreed that gay and lesbian families should see their rights curtailed as a matter of the state's bedrock law. But more than twice that number -- about 66 percent -- said that the state's constitution should not be amended in such a manner. Very few -- only about 4 percent -- had no opinion on the matter.

"This is a bad sign for the state Republicans who, while wrangling with Mark Dayton over the budget, managed to pass through the amendment proposal that would ban gay marriage," the article said, in reference to the state's government having shut down because of a funding crisis that lawmakers could not resolve.

The fact that Republican state legislators could manage to get approval for a divisive amendment that many see as discriminatory, while at the same time failing to maintain the basic functions of the state's government in operation, may come back to haunt Minnesota's lawmakers, the article suggested. Another question addressed the shutdown, and an even larger percentage of respondents said that funding should be automatically renewed at previously existing levels in cases where lawmakers cannot manage to get the job done.

Of the survey's queries, "The biggest margin of all was for the question, 'Do you know who your state representative is?' " the article said. "An awe-inspiring 88 percent of respondents said 'Yes.' "

Earlier this year, a poll of Minnesotans undertaken by local newspaper the Star Tribune also showed that gay and lesbian families had made progress: more than half -- 55% -- did not support the constitutional amendment.

Polls on the issue show that while Republican opposition to marriage equality has not budged in the last year, the last 12 months have seen other segments of society shift on the issue. Moreover, polls have long shown a generational break on the issue, with young voters being much more supportive early on than older voters -- which suggests that as time passes, acceptance of family parity for gays and lesbians is likely to keep growing.

Activists on both sides suggests that the proof is in the political pudding, though some of them say that settling social issues via ballot initiatives is not necessarily the best approach.

"For so long, we've had these ballot measures, and we keep losing them," the Human Rights Campaign's Sarah Warbelow told National Public Radio last spring. "But our hope is that Minnesota is going to turn the tide."

"We're in a cultural shift on this," the HRC's Michael Cole-Schwartz told NPR. "The polls are indicative of a larger movement." As a result, politicians are now using gays as political footballs less often than used to be the case.

"Party leaders realize this doesn't play like it used to," Cole-Schwartz noted.

That in itself has contributed to a notable paradigm shift that sees gay conservatives on the ascent -- and vocal about it, asserting that they, perhaps even more than heterosexual conservatives, have reason to pursue policies that would limit government's size, scope, and power to interfere with individual liberty.

Anti-gay groups are not ready to concede ground just yet, however. The National Organization for Marriage, which has poured millions of dollars into campaigns around the nation to prevent gay and lesbian families from gaining the right to marry -- or, as in the case of California's Proposition 8 in 2008 and, a year later, a ballot initiative in Maine, to rescind marriage parity--insisted that the polls were meaningless.

"People doing polls want to get the results they're getting," NOM head Brian Brown told NPR. As if to underscore Brown's claim, a NOM-backed poll flatly contradicted the Star Tribune's survey, tallying up 57% opposition to marriage equality. Said Brown: "The only poll that counts is what happens in the ballot box, and we've never lost."

But if NOM is going to lose anywhere, Minnesota might be the state. Minnesota is home to the Anoka-Hennepin school district, which has been plagued by a rash of student suicides that critics say might have been prevented if not for a so-called "neutrality" policy that some fear prevents teachers and administrators from intervening when gay students are bullied and harassed.

Moreover, comments from Bachmann's husband, Marcus Bachmann, to the effect that gays are "barbarians" who threaten America with destruction unless they are subjected to "discipline" has galvanized GLBT equality advocates.

Critics also question whether state and federal funds that the Bachmann's Christian counseling clinics accepted might have gone toward so-called "reparative therapy," a faith-based approach to "curing" homosexuality that mental health experts warn is both ineffective and potentially dangerous to those who undergo it.

The issue of reparative therapy was the subject of a nationally televised ABC News segment, which aired video footage taken by an activist who entered the clinic posing as a gay man desperate to be "cured."

Despite the perceived ongoing risk to children, and a pair of lawsuits targeting the Anoka-Hennepin school district, a parents' group recently presented the Anoka-Hennepin school board with a petition to keep the "neutrality" policy in place.