.

POLL: Do You Approve Of The Marriage Amendment's Ballot Title?

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie announced the new language Thursday.

Late last week, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie announced the title that will introduce the same-sex marriage amendment on the November ballot.

He chose the words, "Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."

According to the Star Tribune, amendment supporters wanted the title, "Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman."

Chuck Darrell,  a spokesman for Minnesota for Marriage, the amendment proponents, told the Star Tribune that Ritchie's language choice "is a perfect example of why we need the marriage amendment—you can't trust politicians to allow the law. They are beholden to special interests, like gay marriage activists, and they will force their agenda without the people having their day. The only way to control the definition of marriage is to put it in the Constitution, where politicians and special interests can't meddle with it."

According to MPR, Richard Carlbom of Minnesotans United for All Families, which opposes the amendment, said the new title looks "accurate." Carlbom said "voters are going to vote on the question, and the question remains the same."

The amendment will ask:

"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?"

Now that groups for and against the amendment have spoken, we want to know what you think. Answer our polls and tell us in the comments why you feel the way you do.

 

Updated 12:43 p.m. 7/3/12: University of Minnesota Law School professor Dale Carpenter writes in, saying Richie and other Secretaries of State . He writes: "The idea is that the governmental body that wants the amendment should not be allowed single-handedly to stack the deck in its favor by choosing the title as well."

David July 21, 2012 at 04:36 AM
CHDaggett: They vote on it first because we have a representative legislature. Don't like what they bring up? You can vote in some else in November.
David July 21, 2012 at 04:47 AM
David misunderstands the concept of rights. No constitution or government can 'grant' rights. Our rights come from God and cannot be amended or taken from us, which is why they are called 'unalienable'. This misconception that the government gives us our rights, or some document does, is simply another example of the poor civics education we have. All the Constitution does is 'guarantee' those rights cannot be violated by the government or others. There is a big difference. The voter ID amendment is not bad law, it is common sense. Unless you wish to argue that we should no longer demand ID to board a plane, buy cigarettes, rent a car, vote in a union or enter a federal building. So, are you saying that? And if not, why do you consider voting for our next government to be less important than those things so we need not worry who does it? Also, as an aside, there is no federal 'right' to vote in the US Constitution. How 'bout that! We are one of only 11 "democracies" in the world that don't explicitly guarantee the right to vote.
Nick September 02, 2012 at 08:56 PM
I fail to see how the amendment is discriminatory. Any man can marry any woman, and any woman can marry any man. There is no discrimination there. The current law, and the amendment, apply to all citizens equally. Just because there are people who do not want to follow that law doesn't mean that they are being discriminated against. It would be like saying that anti-polygamy laws are discriminatory against polygamists. Using that logic, all laws could be considered discriminatory because they all discriminate against people who do not want to follow them. Your statement, "Love is love" sounds good and is well-intentioned, but I do not think it is well-thought out. It could be used to argue for polygamy or incestuous marriages. Please keep in mind that if it sounds like I'm stretching by mentioning polygamy and incestuous marriages, both of those actually do have historical precedence, while gay marriage does not. Therefore, it is gay marriage that is the more radical.
Nick September 02, 2012 at 09:04 PM
Your statement, "People should marry whomever they love" sounds good and is well-intentioned, but I do not think it is well-thought out. It could be used to argue for polygamy or incestuous marriages. Please keep in mind that if it sounds like I'm stretching by mentioning polygamy and incestuous marriages, both of those actually do have historical precedence, while gay marriage does not. Therefore, it is gay marriage that is the more radical.
MJ September 25, 2012 at 02:58 PM
Oh, Ward. Things have changed since you took health class in 8th grade. Do you really think gays and lesbians can't have children without the help of a doctor?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »