Minnesota polling now open!
Good morning, Minnesota. Your polls are now open!
If you need one last refresher on where you vote, you can find links on the Voting Information page.
To all of the volunteers for Minnesotans United, good luck out there today!
Vote No!
Voting Information: Take Action!
Even if you’ve voted before in Minnesota, take action and spend one minute to confirm that you are registered to vote and you know where to go on November 6.
The State of Minnesota makes it so easy; simply enter your name, date of birth and address and the site will tell you whether or not you’re registered. It even gives you the address of your polling place!
If you would like general information on voting in Minnesota (registering to vote, absentee voting, overseas voting, etc.) check out the State of Minnesota Elections and Voting page.
14 Days…
It’s hard to believe that in just 14 days, we will be voting on whether or not Minnesota should amend the state constitution to limit the rights of marriage. If passed, this change would permanently eliminate the right for loving same-sex couples to make a commitment to one another.
If the mean-spirited amendment doesn’t pass, same-sex marriage is still not legal in the state of Minnesota. State statute already defines marriage as one man, one woman. However, by defeating this amendment, we allow for future generations to continue the conversations we’ve already started here in Minnesota.
If you’re still on the fence, read through some of the resources on this site. If you’re still not sure after that, please contact me.
This amendment impacts me. It impacts my friends. It impacts my family. It impacts my coworkers. It impacts my community.
It impacts real Minnesotans.
In 14 days, I hope that you will stand with me and vote NO.
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.
See your Minnesota ballot today
With just a couple weeks to go, here’s a nifty site that lets you see your sample ballot before heading into the voting booth. Just type in your zip code and select your street address and you’re provided with a detailed list of what you’ll find on the ballot (including the mean-spirited marriage amendment).
At the top of the page, you’ll see a link that reads, “Click here for Sample Ballot” that allows you to preview your ballot for election day. If you scroll down on the page, there’s also a link that shows your polling location.
It’s hard to believe that in just 17 short days, we’ll have these ballots in hand!
Marriage amendments across the United States
I’ve seen many articles and personal blogs that vary on how many states have already passed so-called marriage amendments. So I did some digging and put together a page that lists every single state that has passed an amendment to their state constitution. I’ve also included the year the amendment was passed and the support the amendment received in each state.
Up to this point, there have been 31 states that have passed amendments limiting the rights of marriage and/or civil unions. If this mean-spirited amendment passes in NOvember, Minnesota will be state number 32.
Of course, we also have the ability to be state number one. The first state in the Union to say NO to writing inequality into our state constitution.
As I think about the history books, I’d much rather be state number one! Let’s keep working to educate Minnesota voters and help our neighbors, colleagues, family and friends understand why it is so important to vote NO this fall.
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: A non-vote is equivalent to a NO vote
I’ve mentioned this before on the blog, but the Pioneer Press ran an editorialthat provides a lot more detail than I provided on the site.
Here’s the gist: In Minnesota, for an amendment to pass the majority of voters have to check yes on the ballot signifying that they want to amend the constitution. If you simply skip the amendment question, it has the same impact as a NO vote.
While I don’t think it’s good form to encourage folks not to vote, I have, in some cases, reminded people that if their conscience doesn’t allow them to vote NO to simply leave the question blank. Defeating this thing doesn’t change anything in the state of Minnesota. However, permanently updating the state constitution to write in language that limits the rights of a subset of society… well that’s just scary.
We’ve got a lot of work to do between now and NOvember to ensure that the NO votes and those who skip the question outnumber the other side. Tick tock.
Minnesota Marriage Amendment Facts
Another great resource from Minnesotans United for All Families: 8 key facts everyone needs to know about the Minnesota marriage amendment.
Ideas on how to take action with this:
- Print this one-pager and post it at work
- Post a link to it on your Facebook page and ask friends to share what they find the most interesting
- Talk to a friend or family member about the facts and leave them with a copy of the one-pager
- Reblog this post and get the word out!
What other ideas do you have on taking action? Let me know in the comments!
Thanks to my friend Jeff for sharing this with me.
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…
Quick Refresher on the Amendment
As a quick reminder, this is not a vote on gay marriage. Rather, it’s a vote to change our state constitution to ban the possibility of ever talking about it again. If this amendment fails to pass (which we all hope it does; please remember to vote no!), gay marriage is still illegal in the state of Minnesota. Marriage is already defined as the union of one man and one woman and nothing will change this fall if we vote this down. That’s why I continue to say “mean-spirited amendment” – this accomplishes nothing other than writing fear and discrimination into our State constitution. It would be a sad day for Minnesota if this were to pass.
Three Myths About the Marriage Amendment
A great page from OutFront Minnesota that debunks three common myths around the marriage amendment:
- Let the People Vote
- The Courts Will Decide if We Don’t
- A ‘No’ Vote is a Vote for Gay Marriage and Will Expand Gay Rights
There are great speaking points to each of these. I’ve included a couple of my favorites below, check out OutFront.org for the complete list!
Let the People Vote
- The people have already voted on this issue through their elected representatives: Gay marriage is already prohibited.
- In 153 years, Minnesota has never amended its constitution on a family law issue.
The Courts Will Decide if We Don’t
- Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes gay marriage, has said: “I expect that the Minnesota Supreme Court or some other lower court will again reject this challenge to the marriage definition.”
- The Minnesota Supreme Court already rejected a gay marriage claim (Baker v. Nelson (1971)). Most state supreme court members today were appointed by Gov. Pawlenty.
A ‘No’ Vote is a Vote for Gay Marriage and Will Expand Gay Rights
- Minnesota law already limits marriage to one man and one woman.
- Minnesota law already bans recognition of gay marriages from other states.
- A ‘No’ vote will not make gay marriage legal in Minnesota.
Many thanks to our friends at OutFront Minnesota for creating such a great page for folks to reference.
Source: OutFront.org
Gay Marriage Support: Then and Now
Really neat comparison between polls on the topic of Gay Marriage in the Chicago Tribune. From the article, take a look at the difference between 2003 and 2012. Moving.
2003:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll July 26-28, 2003 “Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages?”
Favor 32%; Oppose 51%CBS News Poll. Nov. 10-13, 2003. “Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?”
Favor 39% Oppose 53%FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 18-19, 2003. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of gay marriage in that state. Do you favor or oppose same-sex marriage?”
Favor 25% Oppose 66%2012:
Public Religion Research Institute/Religion News Service. March 7-11, 2012. ”All in all, do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?”
Favor 52% (22% + 30%) Oppose 44% (19% + 25%)ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 7-10, 2012. “Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?”
Legal 52% Illegal 43%NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll Feb. 29-March 3, 2012. “Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages?”
Favor 49% Oppose 40%
Every day, we make progress. While the journey may be sometimes slow, it’s so worth fighting for!
MPR News: The Marriage Amendment
For those that are looking for more background on the Minnesota marriage amendment, MPR News has put together a great article that provides the history of same-sex marriage in Minnesota, arguments for and against the amendment, insight into what is happening in other states and more. A great introduction for those looking to learn more about the amendment – on both sides.
Marriage in Minnesota
I’ve mentioned before that Marriage between same-sex couples is already a “prohibited marriage” in the state of Minnesota. However, our law goes well beyond just prohibiting same-sex marriage, it also voids any recognition for same-sex marriages performed other states or jurisdictions.
So again, I ask you, what exactly is this marriage amendment accomplishing?
517.03 PROHIBITED MARRIAGES.
(4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.
(b) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage or its termination are unenforceable in this state.
-
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
