Minnesota Marriage Measure’s Name Is Pretty Explicit

MNMinnesota law requires the secretary of state pick an "appropriate title" for all ballot measures, and current Secretary Mark Ritchie certainly did just that when mulling the name of a measure that would constitutionally define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The Pioneer Press reports:

Ritchie wants the ballot measure, which will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, to be titled: “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples.”

He sent his recommendation to Attorney General Lori Swanson on June 15. State law requires the secretary of state to provide “an appropriate title” for each ballot question.

The proposed marriage amendment is one of two slated for the Nov. 6 ballot. The second question asks voters whether to amend the state’s constitution to require voters to show ID at the polls.

No word on what that ID measure will be called, but surely Democrat Ritchie can think up something.

(h/t JMG)


  1. Bob says

    I think that is the BEST wording of the question I have seen. It removes the buzzwords of both sides, and phrases it a new way, so one has to stop and think a moment.

    But it is still DISGUSTING to make it, and the “Darkies and Mex don’t have picture ID, so let’s keep them from voting”, as Constitutional Amendments.

  2. TomTallis says

    My suggestion is that the ID amendment should be called the “Poll Tax Amendment.”

  3. unruly says

    Can’t believe they’re trying to pass the ID amendment. Time and time again Federal Court decisions have struck down those amendments so this is a pointless exercise.

  4. Chuck In Seattle says

    “Making sure the poor can’t vote so Republicans can win” would seem to be a great name for the voter ID measure!

  5. peterparker says

    He should’ve named the marriage amendment “Preventing Homosexual Couples From Equal Protection Under the Laws of The State of Minnesota.”

  6. Mark says

    “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples.” … Hmm. I notice the word “human” is missing. Oops.

  7. elegir says

    Mark – If we define Marriage for “humans” then we’ll have to allow it for animals, fungi and viruses too!

    Dun’t u no nuffink bout logik?! :)