Proposed Amendment 1
Earlier, I shared that Minnesotans have the ability to preview their ballot before election day. The ballot preview also links out to this page which shows exactly what Minnesotans will see on their ballots regarding the marriage amendment.
The amendment title reads:
AMENDMENT 1
RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGE SOLELY BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN
The amendment question reads:
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?
The following is what would be added to our state constitution if this mean-spirited amendment were to pass:
UNDERLINED TEXT IS WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION
Article XIII, Sec. 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.
The state constitution is there to preserve and protect rights; let’s leave this ugly debate out of it.
Your November Ballot
Over nine months have gone by since I began this blog. I set out to help educate Minnesotans about the marriage amendment and the far-reaching affects it would have on committed same-sex couples in Minnesota. Through the process, I’ve had the chance to talk with dozens of Minnesotans and I’ve been able to connect people to resources. In a small way, I hope that I’ve been able to influence what some may think about same-sex commitment and the rights that those couples deserve.
It may sound weird to say this, but seeing the sample ballot today suddenly makes all of this very real. In fact, it saddens me to see this ballot in front of me in black-and-white. I mean, logically, I know that November will come. However, up until this point, we’ve been preparing for a battle that secretly, I was hoping we wouldn’t have to fight. But here it is. Right here for everyone to see.
Sure enough, we’re voting on my rights. My ability to celebrate love. My ability to share in the same benefits granted to my peers. Me.
If you can’t say NO because your conscience doesn’t allow or because you’re worried what your spiritual leaders may think, simply leave the question blank. Because, if you fill that oval in next to yes when you go to vote, you are truly saying, “Mark, you are less than other Minnesotans” – and I know in my heart, that’s not the Minnesota I love.
Please vote NO.
Breaking News: Amendment Name Change Reversed
In a sad turn of events, the Minnesota Supreme court found that Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, overstepped his role by assigning a new title to both the Voter ID and marriage amendments on ballots this fall.
On June 28, Ritchie announced that he was changing the title of the mean-spirited marriage amendment to read: “Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.” He shared that this more accurately reflected the intent of the amendment.
Less than two weeks later, Minnesota for Marriage brought a lawsuit against Ritchie and others claiming that he had overstepped his legal bounds.
Fast forward to today, less than two months from when this all started, and the Supreme Court has reversed Ritchie’s decision. That means, the original title of the amendment will appear on ballots this fall: “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.” It’s unfortunate, because the word “recognition” creates the perception that this amendment is actually a good thing. However, once you start to dig a little deeper, you quickly realize how troubling this amendment truly is.
Considering that polls already show amendment supporters have a fairly large lead, this latest setback is disappointing.
Amendment Name Change: Some Good News?
As you know, last month I blogged about how the Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, updated the title of the marriage amendment that will appear on Minnesota ballots. Ritchie’s reasoning is that the new name better reflects the fact that this amendment would “limit” the rights of marriage to opposite-sex couples. Of course, this change caused quite a bit of controversy with Minnesota for Marriage suing the Secretary of State.
In an opinion piece in the Star Tribune, William McGeveran and Myron Orfield (both law professors at the University of Minnesota) attempt to clear up whether or not Ritchie was within his rights to do this. The authors indicate that you don’t need a fancy law degree to find the answer:
…you don’t have to be a law professor, or even a lawyer, to understand the constitutional argument. Junior high school civics will be plenty.
A Minnesota law, first enacted in 1919, says, “The secretary of state shall provide an appropriate title” for every question on the ballot. (Notice that’s “shall,” not “may” — and that it’s “appropriate,” not “whatever the proposal’s boosters prefer.”) It’s all part of the secretary’s role as the state’s chief election officer, which also includes everything from certifying voting systems to registering candidates.
So, if you look at the law as it’s written, it seems pretty cut and dry. In fact, the authors go on to share that there have been over 100 ballot questions since 1919 and that the secretary of state has always picked the titles without anyone objecting. Of course, that is, until now.
Let’s hope that the new amendment title sticks and that voters realize that it’s truly is about limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.
Minnesota Marriage Amendment Text
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?
I’m posting the verbiage of the marriage amendment again as a reminder of why education on this matter is so important. At first blush, when you read the words, they don’t seem particularly harmful. And when you read the original title of the amendment (Recognition of Marriage) it may even sound like a good thing.
But when people dig deeper, this amendment becomes troubling. If Minnesota were to pass this amendment, it wouldn’t recognize marriage, it would LIMIT marriage and prevent loving same-sex couples from one day receiving that recognition. It would remove all hope of any future conversation on this topic in the state of Minnesota. The only option would be to bring the discussion back to voters for yet another ballot measure, whereby we would spend even more time and more money on this discussion.
So what if this amendment doesn’t pass, then what happens? Nothing. Yup, that’s right. Marriage is already defined in the state of Minnesota as one man and one woman. If enough people say NO to discrimination in NOvember and vote this mean-spirited amendment down, we’re left with the status quo. If it passes, though, we’ll have updated our state constitution to limit the rights of Minnesotans across this great state.
The moral of my post: Help spread the word and take action! Heck, even share the words of the amendment with your friends so that more folks are exposed before election day. And feel free to use this post (or any other post on this site) as an educational tool about the amendment.
Last week, I posted that the amendment has received a new title (Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples). Hopefully this new title, which removes the word Recognition, helps more people understand that these words aren’t quite as innocent as one may initially think…
Breaking News: Minnesota for Marriage Sues Secretary of State
Well, that didn’t take long. Less than two weeks after Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie announced that the title of the marriage amendment would be updated, Minnesota for Marriage is suing the Secretary of State.
According to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) website:
“The actions of SOS Mark Ritchie and Attorney General Lori Swanson are unlawful and exceed their constitutional authority,” said Sen. Warren Limmer, the bill’s chief author. “The Governor’s veto was purely ceremonial and has no legal binding on the title of the amendment. SOS Ritchie is using the veto as a trumped up excuse to thwart the will of the legislature. It is a sad day in Minnesota when the Secretary of State and the Attorney General disregard the will of the legislature and use deceptive language.”
It’s going to be VERY interesting to watch where this goes over the next few weeks.
Author’s note: Once again, we see the National Organization for Marriage stirring the pot in Minnesota. I wonder how much money they’re going to end up pouring into this fight. Here’s hoping it takes away some of the funds used to promote this mean-spirited amendment.
Marriage Amendment Gets New Title
Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, announced today that he was changing the title of the ballot question to read: “Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.” The verbiage of the amendment itself, however, remains unchanged.
Last year, Governor Mark Dayton vetoed the amendment once it reached his desk. While his veto was only symbolic in nature – an amendment vote circumvents the governor – it did cause one important thing to happen: It invalidated the original title crafted by the legislature (“Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman”). As a result, Ritchie selected the new title.
Of course, amendment backers are upset as the new verbiage reflects more on what the amendment would do: LIMIT RIGHTS. According to the Star Trib, amendment backers are already weighing whether to file a lawsuit.
I personally think it’s a good thing that we took “recognition” out of the title and changed it to “limiting the status.” It better reflects what would actually be happening.
Curious to hear your thoughts. What do you think of this new title?
-
Tweets
- Check out what a visitor to the site asked me to pass along to Father Mike Tegeder. RT if you agree. #minnesota #voteno
http://t.co/4iqhrFX211/09/2012 - #Minnesota nice? Yeah, we #voteno twice! Congratulations to to Minnesota for standing on the right side of history!11/07/2012
- #Minnesota #marriageamendment 78% reporting. #voteno at 50%; yes side has 49%. It's going to be a while before we call this one...11/07/2012
- #Minnesota #marriageamendment 47% reporting. Spread narrows. #voteno side still at 49%; yes side has increased their support to 47%.11/07/2012
- Check out what a visitor to the site asked me to pass along to Father Mike Tegeder. RT if you agree. #minnesota #voteno
