Minnesota marriage amendment

As some of you may know from my previous blog post, I am very interested in the Minnesota marriage amendment and the vote coming up this November.

I wrote an article about this topic after going to a panel discussion on campus. You can read my article here.

For me, the most interesting point of the panel discussion was when one of the speakers was explaining the confusion some voters may have with the language that voters will be seeing when they go to the box.

This segment from my article will help me explain my previous statement.

"On the overhead projector behind Fraser was the actual language from the two parts of the bill that the legislature passed. Section One that will be put into the constitution will add the words, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.” Section Two is the language that will be printed on the ballot and put in front of the people. It reads, “Shall the Minnesota constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

Upon conclusion, Fraser stressed the importance of understanding that the question is supposed to reflect the words being put into the constitution but may or may not actually reflect it in full. “It is important to actually find out the words that will be added to the constitution, because that is the real change. If people vote yes on the question, it is the language above that will be added.”"

Basically, people who are for same sex marriage want to vote NO, and people who are against same sex marriage want to vote YES on November 6. The confusion is brought in because NO sounds very negative, and if people haven't been educated about the question and the language being used on the ballet they may end up voting the opposite of what they actually stand for.

I think it is very important that we educate people about this possible confusion because it would be a tragedy if all the people for same sex marriage voted YES because they think it sounds positive.

So far, I have personally put a bumper sticker on my car that states "VOTE NO, Don't limit the freedom to marry." I also try to post and share stories on my Facebook on a weekly basis about the language and the act.

Here are some other articles I have found that have to do with the language on the ballot.

• Wording matters on ballot questions like the marriage amendment
• Video series explores stories behind marriage amendment vote
• Basic information and frequently asked questions regarding the proposed marriage amendment

These are just a few of the articles I have found online. There are many more out there.

So my overall question is, do you agree that the language makes it confusing for voters to understand what they are actually voting for?

And please, educate others and inform them that the language on this ballot is confusing, we wouldn't want people voting the wrong way.