The Indiana Family Institute
released the following polling data earlier today:
WPA Opinion Research conducted a study of 504 likely 2014 General Election Voters in Indiana on the
proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The
survey was conducted September 24-25, 2013, and has a margin of error equal to +4.4% in 95 out of
Support for the Constitutional Amendment
Likely voters were read the exact ballot language of the proposed constitutional amendment
as it will appear on the ballot in the November 2014 elections.
Respondents were asked the following question:
As you may know, on the ballot next November there may be a number of proposed
amendments to the Indiana constitution for you to vote on. I'm going to read you the text of a
proposed amendment and, after I read it, please tell me if you would vote yes or no on this
amendment. The amendment is...
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in
Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals
shall not be valid or recognized.
More than three out of five (62%) likely voters would vote yes to the proposed constitutional
amendment, while only 33% of likely voters would vote no.
TOTAL YES 62%
TOTAL NO 33%
HARD UNDECIDED: 6%
A majority of likely voters (51%) would definitely vote yes on the amendment, while only 28%
would definitely vote no on the amendment.
These numbers don't match up with the polling data from Freedom Indiana:
This memorandum highlights key findings from a statewide survey of 800 registered voters in Indiana conducted by Bellwether Research for Freedom Indiana between September 17 - 19, 2013. Registered voters were reached via cell and landline telephone. The margin of error is + 3.5% in 95 out of 100 cases.
Voters don't think amending the state constitution is the right way to deal with gay marriage.
By a 64% - 36% margin, voters say amending Indiana's constitution is not the right way to deal with the issue of same sex marriage. This is true for a majority (57%) of Republicans, including 54% of "very" conservative voters, and for two-thirds of independents and Democrats.
A slight plurality would vote against an amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
The question was worded as follows:
Indiana currently has a law that defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. Next year, the legislature may vote to amend Indiana's constitution to define marriage this way and then there would be a statewide referendum in the next general election to approve the legislature's actions. If the election were held today, do you think you would (Rotate) vote YES or vote NO to amend Indiana's Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman?
By a 46%-43% margin, voters oppose this amendment and, with leaners, the margin is 48%-45% against it. Voters over age 65 are the only age cohort more in favor than opposed.
A majority of voters think the amendment goes too far when they hear that it would also ban civil unions.
The question was worded as follows:
The proposed amendment to Indiana's constitution would ban not only gay marriage, but it would also ban civil unions and domestic partnership benefits currently provided by many Indiana employers. Knowing that this amendment bans both gay marriage and civil unions in Indiana would you (Rotate) vote yes or vote no to amend Indiana's constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman?
More than half (52%) of voters would vote no on this amendment after hearing this information, while 33% would vote yes. When leaners are included it becomes 54% no to 35% yes.
Just 28% say there should no legal recognition or rights for gay or lesbian couples, while 38% support civil unions or other benefits and 35% say gay and lesbians should have the legal right to marry. Voters who oppose any rights for gay and lesbian couples are in the minority in Indiana.
The queries are worded a bit differently, eh?
There's an aspect of this that's worth noting: the big employers in the Hoosier state dislike the idea of a constitutional definition of marriage as it's stated above. Tough to attract the top talent in fields like the tech and medical industries when you don't mirror said talent's general tolerance for diversity.
Simply put, this amendment could cost us jobs.