Minnesota’s Marriage Amendment Title Announced


Minnesota’s Secretary of State has announced the title for the November ballot question that would codify the state’s same-sex marriage ban–and it may be an unexpected boon for those who oppose the amendment.

Says the press release:

St. Paul, Minn.—June 28, 2012—Secretary of State Mark Ritchie today announced that the approved title for the proposed marriage amendment that will appear on the ballot in the general election held on November 6, 2012, will be: “LIMITING THE STATUS OF MARRIAGE TO OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES.”

Minnesota Statute section 204D.15 provides that the Secretary of State “shall provide an appropriate title” for each constitutional amendment.

The governor’s veto of the legislation (Senate File 1308) invalidated the title designated by the legislature.

In terms of framing the question, this is a defiant, if small, victory from an administration that has consistently maintained the ballot initiative is derisive at a time when Minnesotans need to be banding together.

This title turns on its head the loaded language approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in May 2011, which was the “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.”

The difference is marked and this chosen title makes blatant the discrimination religious conservatives are asking voters to write into the constitution without having to explicitly say it at all.

A spokeswoman for Minnesotans United For All Families, the coalition of groups opposing the amendment, is quoted as saying the group believes the new name is “an accurate title.”

They caution however that “ultimately Minnesotans are going to vote on the question.”

At the time of writing, those backing the amendment have yet to issue a comment.


Related Reading:

Obama: MN Gay Marriage Ballot ‘Divisive’ & ‘Discriminatory’

Teens Reject ‘Gay Marriage is Like Bestiality’ Talk

Anti-Gay Minnesota Groups Face Campaign Donations Scrutiny

Photo used under the MorgueFile user license, with thanks to mensatic.


JT Smith5 years ago

Danield A., in response to your idea for the lesbian lovers looking to marry the gay male couple, on the surface I like the idea; unfortunately, I've found a couple of flaws.

The first flaw that I found was the fact that polygamy is illegal in the US. Including Utah. (Even the modern Mormons now are saying that their Joseph Smith was wrong on that one. And I know this from having spoken to several in general over the years.) Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I'll leave to others to decide for themselves.

The second flaw took a little bit longer for me to realize. That flaw is that the law would recognize the individual marriages between each pair of one of the gay males and one of the lesbian females in your scenario. Due to the title of what's going to be voted on having to be an accurate representation, that would mean that the two males and the two females would legally be committing adultery, regardless of the fact that they'd be living together and accepting of the arrangement.

Other than those problems, I do like your idea. D) I'd like it even better if America would finally cure its overall cranial/rectal inversion and just grant EVERYONE equal rights and be done with it.

Danield A.
Danield A5 years ago

Given the Title of the amendment I would love to see the law adhere to the title. Of course, the language of the title would allow a married couple to marry another couple to form a cozy foursome. I didn't know that Republicans can be as kinky as that. I can just see the ads in the paper --Lesbian Lovers wanting to meet Gay Male couple. Object marriage. After a straight double wedding, they all move in together, and that's that. O Tempore, O Mores! What fools these gops are!

Jamie Clemons
Jamie C5 years ago

Ok so I am a normal person married to one partner, but I still have to ask. How come our country has laws that say you can only have one spouse? Where did this come from? All through the bible old and new testament there are multiple spouses. Was it roman law from the catholic church or what? I am just curious.

Jen Matheson
Past Member 5 years ago

Hah, good for Mark Ritchie! Now Minnisotans get out there and vote "NO" on this.

John Mansky
John Mansky5 years ago

Equal rights,for all!!!

John Mansky
John Mansky5 years ago

Thank you for the article...

Danielle K.
Danielle K5 years ago

Well, at least the intent of the amendment is clear so anyone who isn't a bigoted homophobe knows to vote no on this thing.

(and if this posts twice, I apologize; Care2 is having problems again)

Danielle K.
Danielle K5 years ago

Well, at least it's clear about what it does. That should make it easy for anyone who isn't a homophobic bigot to vote no.

Norma V.
Norma Villarreal5 years ago

Be clear with your words...this is about equality and constitutional rights. this is not about God and 'morality.'

Mitchell D.
Mitchell D5 years ago

thank you.
Anyone paying attention, by the way, to Limbaugh, is already lost to civilization.