Talking Points: Voter ID, Marriage Amendment On Ballot

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — While the Minnesota House and Senate have to iron out differences in their voter ID bills, it does appear that a constitutional amendment requiring voters to present a photo ID will be on the November ballot.

It will join the hotly debated marriage amendment on the ballot.
Supporters of these amendments are already rolling out campaigns to gain support.

They also will have to overcome a technicality that makes getting an amendment approved by voters more difficult than you might think.

This November, voters will be casting ballots in contests ranging from the presidential race to school board to local judges. And then voters will have to confront the often lengthy constitutional amendment questions.

What many voters don’t realize is that if they skip a constitutional amendment question and don’t vote at all, it automatically counts as a “no” vote. And that’s a hurdle that supporters are worried about.

Jason Adkins is the executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference. He appeared on WCCO Sunday Morning.

“People need to know that if you don’t check the box the government votes no for you so if they actively want to protect marriage between one man and one woman, they actively have to find that measure on the ballot and vote ‘yes’ and we are going to be telling people that is the case,” he said.

Amendment supporters say they are concerned that the more amendments on the ballot the more voters will decide to just skip them — so backers are hoping to limit the number of amendments on the ballot to two or three.

You can watch WCCO Sunday Morning with Esme Murphy every Sunday. Next Sunday the show will be changing times. It will start at 10:30 a.m.

More from Esme Murphy
  • Talking Points: Voter ID, Marriage Amendment On Ballot – CBS Local | Amazing News

    […] CBS Local […]

  • John

    What all the people don’t realize is how hard it is to pass an amendment . First of all you need 50% plus one of the voting public. With all the record turnout you will have with the stupid gay marriage amendment and the right to work amendment, if they can even get enough votes to get in on the ballot, it will never pass. Why dont we focus on jobs and fixing our infrastructure and fixing education before we spend all this time and MONEY on this frivolous action. Leave it to the repubs to waste our time on all of this. Their thinking must be all the jobs we can create if we dont allow gays to marry. HA HA HA

  • Ricky Foos

    I’m a heterosexual who will be voting against the marriage amendment. I know a lot of other “normal people” who will be voting against it. It’s a matter of fairness to me, not just my personal interest.

    • Ace

      me too

  • gcr

    I am also heterosexual who will vote against it. It is about discrimination against a group of people. IT IS NOT about your beliefs.

  • Kilgore

    There are no secular reasons to deny same-sex marriage. The issue is about certain powerful religious groups codifying their beliefs in public laws and thus compelling the rest of us to follow their beliefs. This is a dangerous approach and the Republican Party has been co-opted to carry out their agenda even at the risk of alienating other Republicans and religious groups.

  • Fred Hayek

    Marriage is for a man and a woman to promote families.

    • MamaMJ

      Not all married heterosexual couples have families. Many decide to not have children. The same is true in same-sex relationships; some decide to have children and some do not. We are a same-sex couple with two wonderful boys who will grow up in great family. I would also like to thank all of the hetero folks on this comment string for the support in voting against the amendment. There is hope!

    • jackactionhero

      Fred, you don’t get to decide for anybody but yourself.

      • desert eagle .50

        Then why do YOU want to decide everything for everyone with your nonsense?

        Please be specific.

    • Tom

      @ Fred Hayek

      That is total non-sense! There are many straight couples who choose not to have a family whether it is a personal choice or medical reasons. Are you going to go after them next? Are you going to suggest we pass a law that a couple will be asked if they are going to have kids and if they say no are you going to say sorry you can’t get married?

    • Ricky Foos

      So are you saying that heterosexual couples that are too old to have children or otherwise unable or unwilling to have children shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

  • Katie

    I am another hetrosexual who will vote against banning gay marriage. Solidifying discrimination into our constitution is wrong and backwards-thinking. Studies show that places with more tolerance for the gay lifestyle are more attractive to the best young professionals (and thus the companies that want to employ them.) In 2011, five of MN’s biggest companies (Target, Best Buy, General Mills, Medtronic and U.S. Bancorp through its subsidiary, U.S. Bank) were corporate sponsors of the Twin Cities gay pride festival. In other states, companies like Google, Starbucks, Microsoft, Nike and Boeing actively support gay marriage (or actively appose bans like Bank of America) – because it’s essential for them to compete. In highly-competitive industries, companies do not want to lose out on potential recruits to companies in states with fairer laws, nor do they want to lose out on potential sales to companies who are perceived as being more progressive.

    Isn’t that a powerful statement? Fortune 500 companies are standing up to say “we support the gay lifestyle and if you ban gay marriage, you are actively hurting our ability to run a competative business in your state.”

    I am against discrimination, and I am for jobs. Thus I do not support banning gay marriage in this state.

    If anyone is so obsessed with what other people do privately in their own houses that they cannot stand to allow gay marriage, they should take a moment and think about what they’re really standing for.

  • Tom

    @ angelcarver

    There is no such thing as normal!

  • Tenbears

    Silly people.

    The vote has nothing to do with same sex orientated people.

    It merely states that the defintion of marriage will be changed from a statute to an Ammendment. An Amendment would ensure that the defintition of marriage in Minnesota cannot be changed by a particlar political or judicial entity, but only by a vote of the people.

    • jackactionhero

      Why would people want to vote on the validity of the marriage of complete strangers? I don’t understand why people want to get involved in that to begin with. Can’t you just go about your business?

  • Tom

    I am a Liberal Catholic and believe they should worry about cleaning up their own backyard instead of worrying about what the rest of us are doing!

  • not quite

    It’s about financial benefits for the gays and forcing their disgusting lifestyle choice on society. Tell it how it is. I’m really getting tired of the liberal agenda where wrong is right and people are encouraged to be victims.

    • Tom

      @ Not quite

      Well about the supposed Conservative agenda? When we hear you say keep gov’t out of private lives. But your party doesn’t practice what it preaches now does it!

    • jackactionhero

      Getting married is a lifestyle?

      If you’re saying gay sex is wrong, why aren’t you trying for a constitutional amendment banning that instead?

      Should gays be imprisoned for doing something wrong?

  • TH

    I thought the Republican party was for less government, not more. So why are they pushing for this?

    • Balanced Beam

      Actually, adding another group of relationships to the list of relationships recognized by the state would be more government, not less. Voting for the amendment would support less governmental activity. Getting out of the marriage business altogether would be even better.

      Single heterosexuals are the largest group of people “discriminated against” by the current marriage laws and subsidies. Adding same-sex marriages only makes that imbalance worse, not better. If same-sex couples and their supporters really want equality (as opposed to subsidies), they would push to eliminate governmental recognition of any marriages.

      • jackactionhero

        This is the stupidest argument presented since the “What if a man wants to marry his goat next” argument.

  • Kevin

    Good God your in Minnesota! Every morning millions of liberals wake up….grab their sacks……face twoards MN……and give worship to MN…..what is the chance of LIberalsota voting yes for any of this? There is more of a chance of Bill Maher being saved and preaching christian values……….

    • jackactionhero

      “being saved and preaching christian values”


  • christine

    (Just for the record: I have been married for 19 years and I have a valid I.D.) I will vote NO on each of the ammendments. Any two consenting adults who want to married should be able to. Why in the world does it matter to anyone else who they choose to marry?

    Voting is a constitutional right. End of story. You don’t need government I.D. to vote, you need to be a citizen of the United States. (and I thought GOP was against more government…??)

    • Tom

      @ Christine

      They only want more gov’t if there is something they want taken care of like gay marriage, abortion, etc, etc. It shouldn’t matter but the Social Conservatives have a bug up their ass about it. The way the GOP and the Social Conservatives want to ban whatever offends them which is just about everything.

      It is called being INSECURE!

  • republican

    If those two amendments are going to join into Holy matrimony, then those who are registered don’t vote, those amendments should also count as a NO vote.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Weather App
Thursday Night Football

Listen Live