Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie abandoned the original title of the proposed gay marriage amendment that voters will see on the November ballot and replaced it with one of his own, his office announced Thursday.
The Democrat's office said the title, which will be directly above the ballot question, will read: "Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples." Republicans who backed the amendment effort wanted wording that focused on the traditional definition of marriage, "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman."
The question on the ballot will remain the same.
Chuck Darrell, spokesman for the pro-amendment Minnesota for Marriage, suggested that Ritchie was "meddling" with the amendment. Ritchie's action "is a perfect example of why we need the marriage amendment," Darrell said. "You can't trust politicians to follow the law."
Ritchie's spokeswoman Patricia Turgeon said he wasn't available for comment.
More from the Star Tribune:
Setting up a possible legal showdown, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has scrapped the title of an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, drafted by supporters, and replaced it with one that echoes the campaign to defeat it.
Ritchie announced Thursday that he was changing the title of the ballot question to read: "Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."
That has touched off a furious reaction from amendment supporters.
"We'll have to see if they can do that," said amendment sponsor Sen. Dan Hall, R-Burnsville. "I don't know why they are messing with it, but we have to try to stop them."
Amendment supporters wanted the title to read: "Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman."
65 Comments
Many people don't think of ss couples when reading a ballot about one man and one woman. This new title will remind folks that yes, ss couples would be affected.
There is a campaign here in Minnesota and I have seen one sign and a few bumper stickers that say "Don't limit Marriage", now the Democrat AG lists this on the ballot as ""Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples." which seems to directly follow the campaign against Traditional Marriage. I will vote FOR traditional marriage. Even saying "opposite sex couples" as Richie says sounds a bit strange one. Could an opposite sex couple be 2 women and 2 men in a marriage?? This is abuse by the Attorney General working for Mark Dayton Governor who himself is a Left Wing Extremist.
But that is exactly what the amendment *does*: limits marriage to opposite-sex partners. Not sure why amendment supporters are so angry about the truth.
Typical desperation from the social engineering elites.
They tried it in Cali too.
Didn't help them then.
Won't help them now.
Like so many of the recent, increasingly frantic efforts to impose pseudo-marriage, this will only backfire.
GO MN!
Let's win it by 10!
Rick #3,
What's with your fetish for voting against civil rights?
I fail to see what the issue is. The Wording of the Amendment itself remains the Same, only the Title Heading will change. According to State Law, given how the amendment was passed, and how it was sent to the Governor, it allowed the Sec. of State to change it. And even at then, the new Heading states the same thing it's supporters and opponents are stating. What is also interesting, is that here in MN 11 Cities have passed resolutions opposing the Amendment, and none have passed resolutions supporting it. As for the 2 Primary Coalitions Supporting/Opposing the Amendment it is also interesting to see the numbers. Of those Supporting it, the Listed Supporters are 75 Churches/Religious Groups (74 Christian of Various Denominations, 1 Jewish), 12 Various Groups (Including NOM and FRC), and 4 Businesses. Of those Opposing it, there are 106 Churches/Religious Groups (81 Christian of Various Denominations, 11 Jewish, 13 Non-Denominational, and 1 Pagan), 215 Various Groups (Including HRC, MN Nurses Assoc., MN State Bar Assoc., and MN Psychological Assoc.), 129 Businesses, 30 Law Firms, The State DFL Party, 1 City Council, and 1 City Commission. Minnesota makes an interesting State for this type of Amendment. It is a State with VERY Old Catholic beliefs, and yet has one of the Highest Concentration of Pagans in the US. It also has many of the Traits of our northern European Ancestors, which gives a very strong mix of both Conservative and Progressive Values.
“Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman” was the original wording from the Legislature..."Limiting" to solely between on man and one woman is a fairer reflection of the aim of the amendment.
@ eliasasm - No where in the U.S. Constitution that says that marriage is a civil right & nowhere in the U.S. Constitution that says that gays have the right to get married. if there is, I need the exact quote.
elias:
I think it has to do with your fetish of lying about what civil rights consist in.
See Baker v. Nelson.
There is no "civil right" to gay marriage, and this having been established, the vote of the people on the matter is dispositive.
You will understand soon.
A marriage license is a civil document and to vote against someone to forbid them of a civil document is pure hate, ignorance and fear an is an abomination to what this country stands for.
Calling me a liar are you Rick? Pure hate.
Maybe you need to research how much lying is going on at NOM and then maybe YOU will understand.
Oh, and Rick, Baker v. Nelson was 40 years ago. Keep up.
Oh, and elias, your "disagreement with our radical assault on marriage is pure hate" hash;t worked so well for you the last thirty three times you have trotted it out, and I am confident it will work exactly as well this November.
In any event, Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent, the First Circuit explicitly said so a matter of weeks ago, and therefore we can both compare notes at leisure when the matter is adjudicated at SCOTUS.
In the meantime, we have four elections to win, and trust me, Minnesota will be one of them, and it won;t be close.
Please spend lots of money there
Oh, and elias, your "disagreement with our radical assault on marriage is pure hate" hasn't worked so well for you the last thirty three times you have trotted it out, and I am confident it will work exactly as well this November.
In any event, Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent, the First Circuit explicitly said so a matter of weeks ago, and therefore we can both compare notes at leisure when the matter is adjudicated at SCOTUS.
In the meantime, we have four elections to win, and trust me, Minnesota will be one of them, and it won;t be close.
Please spend lots of money there
Sigh.
NOM now censors defenders, and allows marriage corruption advocates free reign on the board.
Oh well, I could use a break.
@Rick, it's not just you. I support same-sex marriage, but have still been censored. NOM's moderation has been very picky and selective for some time now.
Just more of what we have come to expect from sleazeball politicians. Where in the law is a Secretary of State allowed to tamper and alter the original ballot question after it got the necessary signatures. The supporters obeyed the law while this sleazeball violates it.
"A marriage license is a civil document and to vote against someone to forbid them of a civil document is pure hate, ignorance and fear an is an abomination to what this country stands for."
I was once turned down for a driver's license. To think that that was done out of hate, ignorance, and fear and not because I failed to meet the qualifications to recieve one.
And since when was recieving a licnense a civil right anyway?
"Oh, and Rick, Baker v. Nelson was 40 years ago."
So was Roe vs. Wade, what's your point? Does the validity of court decisions expire after 40 years? If so, then I guess Brown vs the Board of Education is no longer valid either.
SoA#12,
If you are going to equate a drivers license with a marriage license, then you have not the intellect to comment.
SoA#13,
I am sure that most of you here support overturning R v W. What's YOUR point?
Hey Rick, while you are taking that break, do some research on how much NOM lies and apologize for calling me a liar.
@ eliasasm
If you are going to equate the values that support the natural family with hate, ignorance, and fear, then it is you who are not acting on intellect - only frothing rage and frustration.
"I am sure that most of you here support overturning R v W. What's YOUR point?"
That the validity of court decisions do not expire after a length of time.
@Son of Adam:
"What's YOUR point; that the validity of court decisions do not expire after a length of time?"
***SNAP!!!*** Oh no you didn't!
@eliasam,
Are you just going to sit back and take it? You do know that SOA just schooled you; right...?
Didn't Jerry Brown try the exact same thing? But prop 8 still passed, albeit by a much smaller margain than it would have if he hadn't changed the wording. But this is just a futile attempt, the Marriage Protection Amendment will pass with a comfortable majority.
You better get your boycott pants on since Microsoft's CEO just donated $100,000 to support marriage equality as did Bill Gates. Throw your computers in the trash, and God forbid, stay away from Apple products since their CEO is gay. Corporations are people and they don't like NOM.
@Rick,
Do you mean the CEO of Microsoft that just reported a four-billion-dollar loss; that Microsoft CEO...?
I find it very telling that the opposition to the Minnesota Marriage Amendment show their true colors/ideology with their yard signs with the statement "Don't Limit the Freedom to Marry". With that proclamation/sentiment they must support no restrictions for brother to marry brother, father to marry daughter, grandmother to marry grandson, two of one sex marrying one of another sex or the same sex (or 2, 3, 4, etc.), or any other combinations one can think of between consenting adults.
You all are absolutely amazing. I cannot understand, nor would I want to actually, how anyone would want to do what you NOMers are doing. You are going after a small segement of our society and will stop at nothing to stand in their way of being able to live their lives just like the rest of you. How can you do that? How can you have so much hate for someone just because they are not what you think they should be or act the way you want them to? And then put it up for a vote? My gosh, people. You actually think it is ok to vote against another human being. Absolutely heartbreaking. Heartbreaking because the issue is not about you. Has nothing to do with you. Changes nothing for you. But you make it about you. It's about another group of human beings who do not need your and anyone else's approval to be who they are, just like you. You all can deny your hate all you want but, all anyone has to do is read this blog. Your hearts would have to be filled with hate to do what you are doing, and so many of you stand behind your chosen religious beliefs to do so. How very sad for all of us.
What eliasasm said. (bravo)
Minnesota "Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has scrapped the title of an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, drafted by supporters, and replaced it with one that " he likes.
Who needs a legislature, then? Get him out of office, now.
“Changes nothing for you.”
Actually legally de-gendering marriage will have ramifications for family law for generations to come. I have argued elsewhere that this will, among other things, hurt women. A civil union law might not have that effect, but the civil union compromise has been deemed insufficient by the advocates of redefining marriage.
Protecting women is a goal that is not motivated by hate, and while approved by most religions, it is also a secular good.
Rick: Corporations are people and some of them like NOM. You are intellectually 'blind'.
From what I've read, this re-labeling not only accurately describes what this amendment would accomplish, but is also perfectly legal. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure NOM and Minnesota for Marriage have access to some good ones. If they believe they have a case, they can take it to court. Get a grip, this is no big deal.
Little man....Intellectually blind? I think your name speaks volumes!
@Bruce
Well it is a big deal in the sense that it is inaccurate. The amendment is putting what is already a state law into their constitution. Nothing is being limited nor banned. But of course now adays, anything that resembles truth and reason in this country is now dubbed as "hate" and "mean".
A ban would be what San Fransisco did by not allowing people to buy certain soda products or what New York City did and ban the sale of 32 oz cups.
@Eliasasm, I seriously recommend that you don't visit this blog to read or comment. You are obviously very disturbed by NOM and its supporters. Why torture yourself?
I occasionally like to hear opposing viewpoints, but I wouldn't repeatedly visit a website that I hate.
@Zack, great point. Nothing is being "limited." The *existing* definition is going into the constitution.
SSMers need to watch the first episode of the Minnesota Marriage Minute!
Publius, please explain in detail how my existing, legal same-sex marriage is "hurting women." And what ramifications it might have. This is NOT hypothetical anymore. There are existing, legal same-sex marriages in this country right now. Thousands of them. WHERE is all of this supposed fallout?
37
"Thousands of them"? Not across the land, and none of them recognized in MY state, for example, nor by the federal government.
James, natural marriage civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits. Unmarried men cause society much more trouble than married men. (How many married men do you know who rove neighborhoods in street gangs?)
Natural marriage protects women, who often give up or postpone their careers to have children, from being abandoned and harmed economically by uncommitted men.
It also protects mothers from violent crime. Mothers who have never been married are more than twice as likely to suffer from violent crime as mothers who have married.
It also lowers welfare costs to society and encourages an adequate replacement birth rate, resulting in enough productive young people to contribute to society and provide social security to the elderly. The United States’ birth rate is about 2.1 per couple—any lower and the nation cannot sustain itself without immigration.
All of these positive things and more are known to deteriorate once natural marriage is discarded. Just look at the state of the Netherlands and Scandinavia who have had SS"M" the longest.
Ash 36,
Why are you not addressing what I said? Is it easier for you to divert your hate on me? There is nothing hateful about what I said. And yes, I am disturbed by NOM becuase what you and NOM are doing is disturbing.
eliasasm's posts can be summed up in the following manner:
"I have the mind of a spoiled child and the reason why my parents won't give me absolutely everything I demand is because they hate me!"
Baker v. Nelson is over 40 years ago.
Marbury v. Madison was nearly 210 years ago; still binding precedent.
SoA,
Wanting to be seen as an equal human being is being a spoiled child? Color me guilty.
If you all didn't hate others who don't live their lives the way you think they should, NOM would not exist. If you didn't hate, there would be no issue here. You view a segment of human beings as less than yourselves. That's hate.
Eliasasm: No you are confused. People are merely standing up for Traditional Marriage and that that definition should not be redefined for 2% of the population.
Same-sex sodomites cannot marry each other. Marriage is an institution that can only exist between a man and a woman.
Julian Bond on civil rights...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fplYG2BEb0&feature=relmfu
@eliasasm, why would I address what you said? You clearly said that you can't--nor want--to understand the minds of marriage supporters. So you don't need engagement or dialogue. You need to visit websites that don't cause you so much distress. I mean, if you insist on staying, then so be it. I'm just offering a recommendation.
@eliasasm,
The freedom of religion, the right of conscience and the free exercise thereof, is Americas 1st Civil Right; all other rights derive from it. If the American public thought for one instance that sexual depravity and race were being equated with one-another then the 14th Amendment would never have been ratified in the first place and we would not be having this conversation today.
Ash, so in other words, I should shut up and go away so you and the rest of you can continue your hate without having to acknowledge your hate, ignorance and fear and what the real issue is? Got it.
@James
You raise a good question.
Short answer: De-gendering the law works to the disadvantage of women. De-gendering family law will make it legally impermissible to recognize the unique vulnerabilities of women in their relationships with men. Men can impregnate women, but not vice versa. The whole PC culture ignores the special vulnerabilities of women. See http://www.amazon.com/Unprotected-Psychiatrist-Political-Correctness-Profession/dp/1595230459
@James
Longer answer, which might be delayed for moderation.
It takes time for legal ramifications to fully take effect. The passage of the ERA did not immediately lead to SSM in Massachusetts, but the Mass. ERA was used by one of the justices to redefine marriage, which turned out to be the deciding vote. No fault divorce did not immediately lead to the vast increase in divorce we see today, but over time it contributed mightily. Integrating women into the ranks of the military did not immediately lead to the widespread rape of women in the military we see today, but it eventually lead to it. A woman serving in the military in Iraq is now more likely to be attacked by a fellow solider than by an Iraqi. The PC culture and co-ed dorms did not immediately lead to the epidemic of date rape on campus, but that is what we have today. One in four co-eds is now a victim of rape. None of this came about immediately, and none of this was foreseen by the liberal PC advocates of change.
We are already seeing that the redefinition of marriage is leading to a redefinition of parenthood, which works to the disadvantage of those who actually bear children, i.e. women. Parenting is now “social parenting” in Delaware after lobbying from the LGBT community. With SSM parent and partner will replace father and mother, husband and wife in the law. So there will be no legal basis for preferentially attaching children to their mother after a divorce. There will be no legal basis for favoring a woman, who “gave the best years of her life” to the marriage over the man. As soon as we legally ignore the fact that only women bear the significant burden of pregnancy, we put women at a serious disadvantage.
Gays couples prosper more than straight couples, but under the PC culture, women have suffered from the feminization of poverty. This is not hypothetical.
Civil unions in contrast would not de-gender family law. But civil unions are not a politically correct compromise.
All this silly talk of hate just because we disagree. I don't hate pedophiles - heck, I don't even know any - but I hate what they do. Two very different things.
eliasasm,
You are already seen as an equal human being. Being viewed as equal and human doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with everything you say and do. That is a narcissistic spoiled child's view.
You have a lot of growing up to do, son.
You can't "limit marriage to oppposite-sex couples" any more than you can "limit siblings to children born of common parents". It's already what it is; twisting it to mean "any two people" is what's being put forth.
We can limit marriage to whatever we vote it as. Households can still adopt. There's absolutely no problem. And, as you see, State after State goes through its turmoil and gradually ends up disallowing marriage licenses for various social classes: children below a set age, blood-related partnerships, same-sex friendships, and the like. When you guys/gals prove you are a new human 'race', call us back, and we'll reconsider. Until then, enjoy your friendship, and be glad... i mean, -gay-. Cheerios! (don't buy them).
Soa, are you trying to be more condescending than Rick Delano?
SoA 54,
Only a narcissistic spoiled condescending rude child would think that they can have something and someone else can't.
And I don't need your approval. No one needs anyone's approval on civil rights. That's the point.
@ eliasasm
You can have the same things I can, eliasasm. You just have to meet the qualifications to obtain it, just like I do. What do you think the prupose of a license is for?
@ dn
How else am I supposed to deal with spoiled children who throw temper tantrums when they find that the world does not revolve around their every want and desire?
It sure detracts from your credibility, Soa. Just saying.
Not at all, dn. Because my points are based on facts, reason, science, and legal precedent - not childish ravings.
One of the worst articles I've read on NOM Blog. I mean seriously, you expect us to believe that's the name of the bill? That's hilarious. The whole thing though is ridiculous, so I'm not surprised anyway.
What's wrong with the new title?
Is anyone really afraid of the truth?
Call a spade a spade and let the voters decide.
63
It's not the purpose of the title to express a 'truth," rather label and summarize a proposal. It's not supposed to make an argument.
It attempts to make an argument that is not in keeping with the wording of the proposition.
It also attracts the eye of the voter who will get a different impression than if the voter would read the proposition.
It's the kind of monkey business that doesn't belong in the process.
Call a spade a spade? Okay, the union of husband and wife is marriage; there is no justification for mislabeling the same-sex scenario as "marriage" -- that is so whether the persons who'd show up to SSM are homosexual or not homosexual. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. The core meaning of marriage is relevant.
Sure, gay identity politics, that is central to the SSM idea but it is irrelevant to the marriage idea. Marriage integrates the sexes. SSM does not. Marriage provides for responsible procreation. SSM does not. Marriage integrates these aspects into a coherent whole -- a foundational social institution of civil society. SSM is not foundational nor is it coherent.
A spade is a spade.