What's in a name? Well, it may be the difference between winning and losing, according to supporters and opponents of two referenda heading for the ballot in November.
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has now renamed both of them.
First, he renamed the marriage amendment "Limiting The Status Of Marriage To Opposite Sex Couples." It had been called "Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman."
.. Ritchie's decision to rename the voter ID amendment also came just hours after 15 lawmakers and proponents of a same-sex marriage ban filed suit against Ritchie for giving their proposal a new title for the November ballot.
Ritchie said two weeks ago that measure will be titled," Limiting The Status Of Marriage To Opposite Sex Couples." The Republican-controlled Legislature had named it "Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman."
At a press conference, state Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, criticized the new wording.
"Those words are definitely considered negative and misleading, and I believe they're created to sway the voter," he said.
Related: "Perhaps you've never heard of the Secretary of State Project. But if you haven't, you should."
9 Comments
How does this matter?
According to the NOMmies this kind of thing doesn't make a difference... Jerry Brown did the same thing in Cali, etc., etc., etc.... blah, blah, blah...
Given that, why is this even news?
@RC
It does and it doesn't. With California they believe it swayed the vote by 24 points against. Even though the amendment title was made dishonest by then Attorney General Brown, it still passed.
It's dishonest what this Attorney General is doing, that's why it matters.
But I believe it's still going to pass.
If the social left in that state is worred that it will pass so they're gonna warp the language to fit their agenda. If they really wanted to win, they'd do it on merit by advertising and campaigning, not mixing words to sway emotional favor.
“Recognition of marriage” – sounds good.
“Limiting marriage” – sounds bad.
The majority of the people want a unique word to name the man-woman union.
But leaders and rulers say, “you don't know what's best, and your vote only emphasis your own ignorance.”
The” leaders” of the people continue to thwart the will of the people?
And now the state says, “we don't need you anymore, the man and woman (the mother and father) to produce and raise children. We will take it from here thank you very much. And we will turn it into a market and economic profit. Good for the economy, which is good for you. We know what's best. And the word marriage is our kingpin. We must have it!”
Casual voters need to be reminded that the government works for us. We don't work for them.
The people of MN hired Ritchie to do his job by representing them, not representing George Soros and Tim Gill.
He's not doing his job. He must be fired, along with President Spendthrift and the rest of the gang.
How can this guy have so much power? Why can't the legislature just fire him? I do not live in Minnesota so I am not familiar with their laws.
When I say "fire him," I'm talking about November 6, otherwise known as "Impeachment Day."
I think both sides need to be aware that according to MN Law Marriage is nothing more than a Civil Contract. Nothing more, nothing less according to the State Statue.
The "solely between one man and one woman" language is loaded and misleading. The implication is that a "no" vote opens marriage up to multiple partners. That's the sort of misleading underhanded tactic NOM likes to use. The SOS has the duty to make sure they don't get away with it.
@JLB
It's not loaded nor misleading. The state statute already defines Marriage as one man and one woman. It is amending that same language to the constitution.
"The implication is that a "no" vote opens marriage up to multiple partners"
It kinda does, same-sex couples generally are not monagomous.
"The SOS has the duty to make sure they don't get away with it."
No one is getting away with anything. The Secretary of State is a liberal and he has agenda, and in order to fulfill his agenda he's going to play around with words to sway the vote.
It won't work.