Amendments' altered wording fuels political ire

  • Article by: RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: July 9, 2012 - 9:53 PM

Secretary of state recast titles of photo ID and marriage measures.

  • 122
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
digiserv66Jul. 9, 12 9:59 PM

Noticed that his preferred title doesn't have ID or Identification in it... guess that he clearly doesn't want voters to know what the amendment is about.

75
85
kingtutskyJul. 9, 1210:00 PM

Remember the first time this constitutional-amendment stuff was tried by Democrat majority around 6 years ago, when they instituted tax money to the environment and who knows what else- the Republicans didn't behave poorly like the Dem leaders are behaving now.

77
100
goferfanzJul. 9, 1210:12 PM

Mark Ritchie. State employee or banana republic dictator? This guy is unbelievable. Is it any wonder people have no faith in the integrity of the election process? I would have thought Swanson might have the common sense to dress him down, but apparently politics trump law in MN. Shame on both of them.............

89
101
SammyBoyJul. 9, 1210:13 PM

Since we're about to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution, I would hope that all the I's are dotted and the T's crossed before we head into this. Additionally, I would expect the same thing to happen under a Republican administration when a Democratic Congress had passed a party-line amendment that was vetoed by a Republican governor. The cries of partisan politics are partisan in their own right, the screams from the throats on the opposite side. They are just upset that their focus group-tested language is in danger of being tossed out, as they spent good money finding the right wording to short-circuit the critical-thinking skills of voters. Now they have to spend more money protecting an expensive title of an amendment that could be invalidated in two years when California's Proposition 8 ends up in front of the Supreme Court. Glad all this time, money, and energy is being spent on an issue that we already knew was going to be reviewed in relation to the US Constitution (supreme law of the land, no matter what garbage the state constitutions get loaded up with). And the Voter ID thing is just a joke, as that should be dealt with legislatively, not through outrageously absurd pissing matches between two groups who have no actual concern for the integrity of the ballot box. Both sides are tilting at windmills, just like the fool in Cervantes's novel.

103
58
mmcinteeJul. 9, 1210:15 PM

Large error in this paragraph: If Ritchie's changes remain intact, November voters would see a question on their ballots about "limiting ... marriage to opposite sex couples" rather than one about recognizing "marriage solely between one man and one woman." The change is in the TITLE not the question. Your headline should also reflect that the wording of the amendment has not been changed, only the title. So "Amendment titles' alter wording files political ire" would be much more accurate.

76
15
mwellcomeJul. 9, 1210:17 PM

Ritchie did a great job concerning very close elections. But, he has NO BUSINESS getting involved with the two ammentments in question. They were both passed by the legislature. I will not vote for him again. He has lost my trust.

68
95
fwallenJul. 9, 1210:19 PM

Ritche has the best job he will ever have. His effort to thwart legislative intent is so shallow, it is even beneath him. Whatever your position on these amendments, you can't rationally support obfuscation over plain language. Let's have an up or down vote by people who know what they are voting for or against.

66
83
ohcontrarianJul. 9, 1210:33 PM

Ritchie's wording is correct. It's about exclusion. The heterosexual couples want to be part of a little club and exclude others. Again, to those marriage amendment supporters who would vote based on religion, please realize that a no vote is not the state or the no voters forcing their view of religion onto you. Even if the state could technically recognize marriage between homosexual couples, your church would not be required to do so. Your church would not be forced to marry a homosexual couple. It is only about the legal status in the eyes of the state. It has nothing to do with religion! Please keep that in mind when you go to the polls and realize that if you vote yes, you are the ones forcing your views onto everyone else. It is not true the other way around, it is not no vs. yes equal opinion. Logic and reason supports the no-ers, the yes-ers are the oppressors.

103
53
thehoffersJul. 9, 1210:35 PM

Shame, your name is Ritchie.

59
85
kd5757Jul. 9, 1210:39 PM

"Limmer said the new language was designed to mislead and sway the voter. He was one of a handful of Republican lawmakers who joined with pro-amendment Minnesota for Marriage in suing Ritchie and Swanson over the change."....Limmer and his ilk would know a thing or two about misleading the voter on this discriminatory amendment. The anti-gay marriage crowd knows that their arguments wither in the light of day rendering their smoke screens and half-truths ineffective. That is why they fear the issue of same-sex marriage being resolved in our court system where one needs to testify under oath, present expert witnesses, and be subjected to cross examination.

82
32

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT