Local legislators say a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is distracting from the state budget crisis.

“We have very little time to focus on a marriage amendment at this time,” said Rep. Rich Murray, R-Albert Lea. “We need to focus on getting these budget items taken care of.”

The plan, contained in a bill introduced in the Senate Friday, would place the amendment on the 2012 general election ballot.

Murray said his office has received an overwhelming number of calls from constituents on the issue. So far, most are in favor of voting on it, he said.

Rep. Jeanne Poppe, DFL-Austin, agreed the amendment is a distraction. She also said it is unnecessary, since same-sex marriage is already banned under Minnesota law upheld by the state Supreme Court.

“It is not allowed under the state laws, so … there’s not a need to actually vote, because it’s already prohibited in state law,” Poppe said.

But Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said nothing would be as ironclad as defining marriage in the Minnesota Constitution as exclusively between a man and a woman. Without that, there’s still a risk, he said, of “allowing a number of politicians or, heaven forbid, activist judges to decide what marriage should be.”

DFL lawmakers responded by calling the idea a divisive distraction to the issue that leaders of both parties have agreed is top priority right now; passing a state budget. “What family does this help in Minnesota, especially in this time of need?” asked Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis. “Absolutely no one.”

Polls have consistently shown that most Minnesotans oppose gay marriage, although at least one poll, from 2006, found that despite opposition, a majority of Minnesotans would vote against an amendment banning it. Many polls have shown a majority of Minnesotans support having the question put to them — a point Limmer and other Republicans underscored as justification for their plan.

Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, said he would “strongly oppose” the amendment, but Dayton has little more power than any other voter on the matter.

In Minnesota, the only way to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot is to have both legislative chambers approve it by simple majorities. Such a bill is not subject to a veto or any other action by the governor.

For an amendment to succeed, more than 50 percent of ballots cast must be a “yes” vote. Because a ballot without a choice marked on the amendment is equivalent to a “no” vote, public awareness campaigns are viewed as crucial, such as in the successful campaign to pass the Legacy Amendment to fund arts and the environment in 2008.

Of course, public awareness campaigns for same-sex marriage amendments are nothing new. Nationwide, 31 states have approved amendments on same-sex marriage.

The Minnesota Family Council, which opposes same-sex marriage, lauded the move, while OutFront Minnesota posted a petition against the amendment on its website.

To get the amendment on the 2012 ballot, the bill needn’t be proposed until next year. When asked why he was doing it now, Limmer said a serious “statewide discussion” was needed on the issue. “We need to have a longer discussion than a few months,” he said.

The amendment, if approved by both chambers, would offer a simple yes-or-no question to voters: “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?”

Current state law lists the following among prohibited marriages: “a marriage between persons of the same sex.”

A hearing in the House is expected next week.

—The Associated Press contributed to this report.