I'm surprised that ONE (1) individual has the power to decide something like this. You would think that the legislature would have had this as part of the bill. Very Odd....

James - and the other wording is less biased?? Mark is just trying to make it more clear what the actual intent of the amendment is (IMHO)

@CHDaggett - Oh, heck no. But like I said in my reply to Edward's comment, below, I don't think Ritchie shouldn't be engaging in the fight. The original wording was decided by the legislature, and the pro-gay side lost that fight along with the fight to keep it off the ballot. I'm just worried by his actions create the perception of bias, when we want him to be as neutral as possible, trusted by all sides. Why push for an advantage in this situation when you see the potential damage?

Not that my position would be the same on Ritchie's outspoken opposition to the voter ID question. That's a different mess entirely, since he's also the state's highest-ranking expert on that stuff.

You think Ritchie was scrupulously neutral in the Franken/Coleman recount? I am not understanding the wording difference. Can you explain it to me, seriously, the words look the same, but there is an apparent difference, or this wouldn't be a hot topic.

In response to ABSG, the legislature DID provide a title to the amendment as part of the bill. A simple read of the Minnesota Constitution reveals that the legislature, and NOT the governor, has the power to submit constitutional amendments to voters. This includes the power to choose the form and phrasing of the proposal. The secretary's unilateral decision to change the title (and flimsy legal argument in support of his power-grab) are unprecedented and clearly beyond the bounds of his office.

Let's see if I can explain the intent of this bill. Those who constructed the bill are Tenthers. So-called "Tenthers" believe, contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the preemption doctrine, that state laws and constitutions trump federal laws and court decisions. They believe that adding the existing state law to the state Constitution will stop courts and legislators from changing or preempting the law. However, the federal government both can and has overridden state constitution clauses all the time. Either Congress or the Federal Supreme Court can strike down Minnesota Constitution clauses.

Most people expect these divisive constitutional amendments will be preempted later, but they will scare away out-of-state job-seekers until then.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/the-supremacy-clause-and-the-doctrine-of-preemption.html

@Edward - It's true that it foregrounds those of us harmed by the amendment. However, I feel like us pro-gay types lost the argument on how this would be defined, and it's not Sec. Ritchie's place to engage in that debate. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but when I read the news about his action, I had visions of Katherine Harris, the Florida Sec of State 1/5/99 - 1/7/03. Not that this is tantamount to purging eligible voters from the rolls before the closest presidential election in recent history, but it's still politicizing an office that shouldn't be political.

I agree because the law has been tested to the supreme court in Minnesota and it was stated that marriage is between a man and woman. I think we are wasting a lot of money on this issue.

@Colin Lee: The Supremacy Clause only covers the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution, not every aspect of our Republic. As the 10th Amendment clearly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Therefore, the Federal Government has no authority outside the limits of those 18 powers and the Supremacy Clause applies ONLY to laws relating to them. All other "power" is clearly and specifically given to the States and the People. So, no, you haven't explained the intent of the bill.

Any instances where the Federal Government has 'overridden' state constitutions which are outside of the Enumerated Powers is, by definition, unconstitutional. This arrogance by the Progressive movement to illegally create an all-powerful national central government has been going on for a century now and we are nearing a Constitutional Crisis because of it. There will be a nexus in our near future that will decide if we remain a federalist Republic or become a nationalist democracy. I think I know which outcome Colin and the gaggle of astroturf issue groups on the Left want to see happen.

Seriously, you would codify discrimination into our state constitution against an entire group merely to spite a single man?

For the legally challenged (I'm looking at you Karine, and people just like you), they conveniently ignore the fact that state law gives the Secretary of State to choose the title used on the ballot for any constitutional amendment. Making a title more clear by exposing the truth to voters leads to a more informed voter, thus increasing the chances of their vote being what they intended.

Secretary Richie is not engaging in partisan politics by doing so, nor does he have to defend his change.

So before you hurl insults at "looney liberals", perhaps you should take a look in the mirror and see what looney you see staring back it you. I'm sure it will be enlightening if you have your eyes open.

When you can show evidence of rampant voter fraud, then you might have something to complain about. Since you can't, you're just another low-information Republican that repeats non-facts you get from your Messiah, Fox News.

Grow up.

Yeah - love how some groups constantly pull out the old "right to bear arms" part of our founding fathers arguments to justify their wish to carry their guns with them everywhere, but then conveniently bury the "separation of church and state" part!

The 2nd Amendment is actually a part of the Constitution. The concept of Separation of Church and State is not. So nothing to 'conveniently bury' there except a complete ignorance of what's actually IN the Constitution on CHDaggett's part.

Jennifer, the problem here is that marriage is no longer JUST an "honored religious and sacred sacrament". Marriage is also part of our legal system, with tax and other benefits. We must give all law abiding adults the same rights in this country. If you want it to be a religious sacrament, then you must remove it from our legal system....being as a majority of our law makers are married, and currently benefit from the tax credits for married people, I don't see that happening.

Religion must stay out of our law making.

Just ask State Sen. Amy Koch and Michael Brodkorb about the "long and honored religious and sacred sacrament."

BTW, us Mormons have also had a symbolic union between one man and many women - as part of our past, present, and future. Some may try to deny its existence but its there. However, Catholics keep working to deny our religious freedom by passing laws proclaiming marriage as between one man and one woman. Why can't we have our Religious Freedom?

Remember it is all those "minor and insignificant" portions of the population that eventually make up the majority. Minnesota voters are a very moral group who will not purposely vote to discriminate against anyone. I am not a homosexual and I have no desire to marry anyone but will vote no because the government should not dictate who I can marry or what my "family values" should be.

I love when people say that marriage is a "long and honored religious and sacred sacrament." It shows their ignorance. Marriage used to be about busines and furthering one's land and ownership. It was about what you could get - 2 goats and a cow. Infidelity was commonplace because marriage was not about love. It has only been deemed "sacred" in the last 50 years or so. And don't try to speak about the foundation of our nation as an excuse to be a bigot. Thomas Jefferson had a whole other family with one of his slaves. How is that honoring a "sacred sacrament"?
The homosexual community is not an insignigificant portion of our population and again, you show your ignorance with such comments. What makes you so entitled to this sacrament?

So Jews only make up 2% of he population. Is that also "minor and insignificant" enough to start discriminating against them too?

It must be clearly stated...one man and one woman..
When the U.S. was founded, many laws were written almost directly from the Christian 10 Commandments. So, for those few radicals that don't like it, this country is Christian and has religious morals.
This entire subject is a perfect example of not allowing a few radicals to change the definition of something to suit their purpose alone and EVERYBODY else has to "live with it".

Marriage is and will always be a union of one man and one woman....we just have to like it OR lump it..

ATK, maybe you should take an American History course...but not in a church, in a school.

Kerry - ummm...you mean aside from the additional 17 provisions that have been added to the constitution since it was adopted in 1791? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

At least those provisions have been added according to the proscribed protocol set out in the Constitution itself. Unlike all the "rights" progressives continue to claim are there via activist judges and corrupt federal congressmen. If the opposition is so sure that they have God, Right and the majority on their side then why are they so afraid to let the people vote in November? SO afraid that Ritchie needs to overstep his authority in an obvious attempt to "SUPPRESS VOTES" for the amendment by deliberately confusing voters with the title change. The Left claims it's all for democracy, then it's time for them to put their money where their (collective) mouth is and let the people vote.

I was actually against putting forth this amendment. I much preferred pushing for Right to Work and Voter ID as those are far more important. As a conservative with libertarian tendencies, I think the State should get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the religious and social groups. On this level, marriage is nothing more than contract law anyway.

The historical reason for the State giving perks to m/w marriages was because they produced children which was in the State's interest to have. A lazy and selfish society has caused many couples to have only 1 or no children at all and Medical advancements allow other couples to have children. There is also adoption so that reason is now moot. I'd have far more sympathy for the opposition if they argued that a loving gay family is a better alternative that orphanages, but all we get is hysteria and name calling.

But since the State is involved in marriage, the People have the right to decide who will and will not get those perks, simple as that.

Pete,
what in the world are you thinking here......all citizens are respected equally..
But 2 men can't marry each other nor can 2 women marry each other....that is not discrimination...that is the law of nature.
Men can't get each other pregnant and have children and create our future generations.....me and billions of others are just sayin'...

BRAVO!

ATK, If people were only to marry for procreation, wouldn't this prohibit a 50 year-old widow from remarrying? I mean, she wouldn't be able to have children anymore, so why should she be allowed to get married? Or shouldn't she?

Can two adults marry and not have bearing children in mind?
Can two 80 year old adults marry and not have intercourse in mind?
Does same sex marriages have to be between homosexuals?

ATK, seven billion people aren't enough? There are 400,000 kids in foster care, every last single one of them created and put there by a heterosexual couple. To you, that isn't enough? It is a blessing, not a curse, that they don't procreate. They care for the children that heterosexuals choose not to, giving them loving, stable homes, and all of society benefits from that.

Robert, you are so far off base....what you have written here is disgustingly wrong. All the general population wants to make clear is that marriage is and will always be a union of a man and a woman. You can throw Christianity under the bus all you want, pretending you know more than God Almighty. He put marriage in motion as the way to populate our world and create a society.
We can't say gay people don't agree with that or not, but, as radicals go, you are right up there with those who continually want to shove your crap down everyone's throat.
We should always respect all human beings.........that is required of us all from God Himself.. but, this gay movement stuff is dangerous. I would gladly stand by and defend any gay person, until the homosexual act is committed.
And to you Susan, I would trust the church's history before I would acknowledge any general history information.

And yet, ATK, we are talking about our legal laws and rights...not the church's. If you want to live in America, you have to follow Constitutional laws, which are not always the same as the church's laws.

What "enslavement"?? You don't believe in same sex marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex! Free choice!

You conveniently overlook the fact that Catholic priests have been molesting alter boys for decades, while preaching against the supposed "sins" of homosexuality.

I think there's a bit of a disconnect between their proclaimed religious beliefs, and their actions. So if they're this conflicted over their own teachings, it does make you question their supposed beliefs and teachings about marriage.

Rob,
As I understand the Catholic church, they respect the Jewish faith as well as numerous Christian churches. Heck, Jesus Himself, was raised as a Jew. He started the Christian church. There are major and minor differences in what they all believe....what is your background ?
This country was formed based upon Christian morals and values.

So ATK, if I am not a Christian I can not have good morals and values?

ATK, This country was founded on the Separation of church and state. Separation!

As a Christian, I am pleased by this, because it preserves my Religious freedom.

You may know that when this country was founded, the Archbishop of the Church of England was having Puritans and other Protestants jailed, and in many cases executed (!!!!) for not agreeing with HIS dogma. America was founded by Puritans fleeing persecution by the Papist Church of England.

That is why separation of church and state is so important, because it preserves our Religious freedom.

As a Christian, I thank GOD for this freedom. How do you feel about this freedom?

I'm not an attorney but I will tell that the language used in laws includes something lawyers call "the spirit of the law". This allows them to take a word and change it's definition to mean something else. For example in land use laws it talks about the character of a neighborhood. That doesn't mean the attributes of the neighborhood--it translates to zoning.

Which Christian laws should we follow: Catholic laws, Wisconsin Synod laws, Missouri Synod laws, Universal Unitarian laws, Church of Christ laws, Evangelical Lutheran laws, Jehovah Witness laws, Church of Jesus Christ, Later-day Saints (Mormons), Southern Baptist laws, First Baptist laws, or some other Christian denomination's laws? You see if we followed Catholic law we would ban masturbation and contraception but not with Lutheran law. If we followed Baptist law, we would ban alcohol and dancing, but not with Catholic law. So, which Christian denominations laws should we follow?

It looks like you haven't been able to accept the fact that the Bible is merely a series of stories, rather than a recounting of the history of God. If you have some proof that there is a God, and that this guy named Jesus really died and was resurrected, I think we'd all like to see that.

So unless you have this proof, you should stop referring to Christ, Him, Her, and God as though they were actual divine beings.

"As conservatives it is about keeping our freedom"
So as long as we believe what you do, we are allowed that "freedom", but if we don't believe what you believe, we aren't entitled to that freedom of religion?

So we obviously should ban bacon then because it is considered sinful to Muslims and Jews then.

As for the "complementarity", believe me, no one ever had to write a gay relationship help book called "Men are from Mars, Men are from Mars."

If this were a ballot question to add an amendment to restrict drinking, would we call it "Limiting alcohol consumption to those over 21 years of age" or "Recognition of legal alcohol consumption solely for those over age 21" ?

Which more clearly conveys the function and intent of the law? Which wording would be easier for voters to quickly understand when voting?

Karine, this is simply not true! I believe in tolerance and love, you seem to think and act in an opposite fashion, yet I still think you have a right to believe that. You, on the other hand don't think I have the right to believe something other than what you perceive to be "right". That is sad, and that is what will drive us farther apart, NOT because I tend to be more liberal on social issues....it is because you have no tolerance for my beliefs.

Wish I could give you a standing ovation R Smith! Thank you. It's a dangerous road to start down when any government starts limiting the rights of a particular group of citizens, based solely on how they choose to live their personal lives.

Thanks for your heartfelt comment amidst a sea of fear and confusion.

Thank you, Joan. Just to be clear, voting no will not legalize gay marriage. It will reject writing the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman into the constitution. That definition is also written into state law, and will remain after November unless the law is changed.

Joan: Actually, you can get married right now, no waiting in aisle 3! The amendment only restricts which types of relationships the state can recognize. And even if it fails, the state still won't be able to recognize your marriage as the statute still exits that bars the state from doing so.

So go get married. Nothing is stopping you and your partner from getting all your friends and family together and having a great big wedding in a church somewhere if you choose. You have always been able to do this and still can. You don't need a license, because the state isn't going to recognize your relationship, so there is nothing stopping you two crazy kids right now. Have at it.

Mazel Tov.

Interesting how the Legislature, when acting in its own behalf, uses the "let the voters choose!" battle cry - conveniently glossing over the little fact that THEY'RE the ones who first get to choose what we get to vote on!

Nope, because owning a firearm is a Constitutional right. Says so right there on the paper. Sorry.

CHDaggett: They vote on it first because we have a representative legislature. Don't like what they bring up? You can vote in some else in November.

Well said, SImon. The only way to "uphold the sanctity of marriage" is to outlaw divorce.

Simon says jump up and down.

@Karine - Please refrain from name-calling. Everyone else—including you, up to now—has managed to have a reasonably civil discussion. Please keep it that way.

Karine, you need to grow up! You agreed to Patch's User Agreement when you created your profile....don't demand to change the terms now.

A comment has been deleted due to a violation of our terms of service. We thank everyone who has remained consistently respectful of others. Oh, and this most certainly is our business, otherwise I wouldn't be spending my afternoon moderating those who don't understand that.

Then why did the Pope and therefore the Catholic Church sanction the marriages of European Kings when they married more than one woman at a time? Is it possible that marriage between one man and one woman is what the Catholic Church wants in the present because it suits some ulterior motive but not necessarily what every Christian denomination wants. Therefore, would that make Minnesota a probate of the Vatican instead of to the Union of the United States? Do we really want Catholic law to dictate the Minnesota Constitution? Do we really want the Pope telling us what to do?

ATK, you are wrong. Marriage has NOT always been the union of one man and one woman. Ever. Look in the bible. How many wives did Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon have? Hundreds between them.

Thank you Jim and Erin for pointing out the flaws in this overly reiterated Christian argument. And thank you for doing it without trying to demean those opposed by frivolously shortening their names in a childish attempt to insult.

I agree with your thinking, I really believe that marriage should be separated from
religion...it is a state function, allowing 2 persons to share property equally while married and provides relief when the marriage is dissolved. Perhaps the state could redefine marriage by another term...Let religions retain the word marriage for their own use and not confuse it with a legal status.

James: Here is an opposing view which states that the Constitution trumps state statutes. The author writes:

"The state constitution puts the Legislature fully in charge of the form and substance of any constitutional amendment. There is no constitutional role for the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in the amendment process and a constitutional allocation of power cannot be amended by statute. As such, the statute is not binding on the Legislature and there’s no need to debate the very debatable language of the statute. Indeed, in Duluth & N. M. Railway, 112 N.W. 897 (Minn. 1907), the Court clearly states that one Legislature cannot “bind its successor” in “prescribing the form and substance” of a ballot question."

http://www.amexp.org/blog/201206/ritchie-has-no-authority-to-replace-constitutional-amendment-titles-provided-by-legislat

Also, on the political front, here is an Op/Ed asserting that Ritchie's move is clearly political based on the grammar of the titles he created. The author writes:

"Assuming for a moment that these changes were not politically motivated in an attempt to confuse voters, let’s examine the meaning of both of these new titles. “Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples” indicates that the status of marriage to same sex couples is currently permitted by law (it is not) and will be revoked if the measure is to pass."

http://unioneagle.com/2012/07/secretary-of-state-ritchie-deserves-an-f/

Read the rest.

If I understand the author's point, it's purely opinion. Whether or not a single government body should be ALLOWED to 'stack the deck' is a settled point as the people have directly selected that process and codified it in the Constitution (See the link in my other post here). It is irrelevant whether or not the author agrees or demands some kindergarten-like mentality of fairly 'sharing" the power. The Constitution clearly states that, like the Governor, Ritchie and the Atty Gen have no role at all in putting an amendment before the people.

EX-cellent point, James Sanna, thank you!!!

@Erin H - As we've been asking others, please keep it civil. Our Terms of Service: http://southwestminneapolis.patch.com/terms

Yes, James.
(In my defense, my comment made a lot more sense before her comments were removed, but I will temper my words next time.)

Thanks, Erin H. I sometimes get carried away in the heat of the moment, too.

Thank you Kevira, and my apologies for mirroring her sassyness, but I am not sure how my last comment that was deleted violated Patch's user agreement. I hope that you will delete the other comments above..."Looney Tune liberals", "disgustingly wrong", " just another Looney tunes liberal" etc.

Thank you David, you are right on...Asking citizens to allow discrimination by the state, should never be on a ballot and the same with the voting amendment.

Thank you, David. You comments are accurate, on point and I couldn't agree with you more.

David misunderstands the concept of rights. No constitution or government can 'grant' rights. Our rights come from God and cannot be amended or taken from us, which is why they are called 'unalienable'. This misconception that the government gives us our rights, or some document does, is simply another example of the poor civics education we have.

All the Constitution does is 'guarantee' those rights cannot be violated by the government or others. There is a big difference.

The voter ID amendment is not bad law, it is common sense. Unless you wish to argue that we should no longer demand ID to board a plane, buy cigarettes, rent a car, vote in a union or enter a federal building. So, are you saying that? And if not, why do you consider voting for our next government to be less important than those things so we need not worry who does it?

Also, as an aside, there is no federal 'right' to vote in the US Constitution. How 'bout that! We are one of only 11 "democracies" in the world that don't explicitly guarantee the right to vote.

Well, thank you to all the commenters who've managed to keep this discussion (largely) civil without intervention from us editors! It's been real nice, from a "faith in my fellow Americans" point of view watching folks from both sides of the spectrum articulate and argue their points *without* resorting to (much) name-calling and personal attacks.

Your statement, "People should marry whomever they love" sounds good and is well-intentioned, but I do not think it is well-thought out. It could be used to argue for polygamy or incestuous marriages. Please keep in mind that if it sounds like I'm stretching by mentioning polygamy and incestuous marriages, both of those actually do have historical precedence, while gay marriage does not. Therefore, it is gay marriage that is the more radical.

Damn, Ward, I wish someone would have thought of that before our current emporer was born.

Oh, Ward. Things have changed since you took health class in 8th grade. Do you really think gays and lesbians can't have children without the help of a doctor?

I fail to see how the amendment is discriminatory. Any man can marry any woman, and any woman can marry any man. There is no discrimination there. The current law, and the amendment, apply to all citizens equally. Just because there are people who do not want to follow that law doesn't mean that they are being discriminated against. It would be like saying that anti-polygamy laws are discriminatory against polygamists. Using that logic, all laws could be considered discriminatory because they all discriminate against people who do not want to follow them. Your statement, "Love is love" sounds good and is well-intentioned, but I do not think it is well-thought out. It could be used to argue for polygamy or incestuous marriages. Please keep in mind that if it sounds like I'm stretching by mentioning polygamy and incestuous marriages, both of those actually do have historical precedence, while gay marriage does not. Therefore, it is gay marriage that is the more radical.

1) When Muslim's increase their population and they want to start quoting their holy book as bases for law - what then? Will you be willing to accept that or in a "Free" country do we only use your religious book?

2) At one point lots of people stated biblical verses as a bases for slavery (slavery is all over the place in the bible so if we want to go by the bible where can I pick up some good slaves - any race will do), mixed race marriage was argued as being against God's Will and the list goes on and on.

3) Regarding the Bible further Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and God didn't mention it in the 10 Commandments but He did mention 10 other things - surely if homosexuality was so bad God could have made an 11th Commandment - or dropped one of the others...

4) The pro-gay marriage movement has been increasing in "Yes" votes over time - for the anti-gay folks it is a huge voting issue and they will go out and vote while the pro-gay marriage people it isn't a huge voting issue for a lot of them.

However, as the population's movement towards pro-gay marriage continues to increase at some point the numbers will be enough for the amendments to start passing and once that happens will you be ok with gay marriage once it starts getting passed by a majority vote by the people?

Or will you still want to have your religious beliefs take precedence?

Jim, Comparing love and marriage between two adults, to child abuse, is a foolish and hateful comparison.

Forgive me for calling your statement out for what it is.