It’s Just Words
By Mitch Berg
Secretary of State Ritchie http://www.twincities.com/
And Joe Doakes of Como Park is not impressed:
Excellent example of the language battle. Other possible titles:
“Enshrining Hate In The Minnesota Constitution.”
“Limiting Homosexual Activist Court Tactics”
“Establishing a Second Class of Citizens”
“Limiting” is different from “Recognition” because “Limiting” implies discarding some legitimate options. That’s not what’s happening – we’re not going from several forms of marriage down to one, we’re recognizing that we’ve always had one form and we intend to keep it.
More than liberal meddling, it’s liberal activism, attempting to influence voters with the wording question.
Joe Doakes
Como Park
Given that it’s Mark Ritchie, we should be thankful he’s not calling it the “Family Suppression Amendment”>
June 29th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
I would think Ritchie could be sued over this. Good publicity, if nothing else. The one thing the pro same sex marriage hate more than anything else is energized, involved voters.
June 29th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
How about the “Leaving the definition of marriage just like it is” amendment?
June 30th, 2012 at 1:13 am
In the full context of the situation, this new language is more accurate. The goal is to restrict marriage to being between a man and a woman, with all of us knowing full and well (whether one agrees with it or not) that the goal of the amendment is prevent expanding the institution to being being two adults of the same sex. This prevents the state courts from extending those equal rights under the state constitution. It IS a restriction when viewed in the full context of the situation.
July 1st, 2012 at 8:32 am
I’m okay with this change if we are then able to list Mark Ritchie as something like “Bought-off corrupt vote-fraud supporting incumbent Mark Ritchie” on the 2014 ballot.