Only a couple of weeks ago I posted here about voter confusion over Amendment One, the proposed amendment regarding marriage to the state constitution. It’s on a ballot near you now.
There are a ton of things that voters are unsure of regarding the measure — something we hope to address in detail in Sunday’s Times-News with a Q&A regarding Amendment One. But one thing that has proved posing is what a for or against vote means. A vote for the amendment is ostensibly against the idea of same-sex marriage. A vote against the amendment is for keeping things the way they are now. It’s more complicated than that I know but on it’s simplest terms, this is the basic deal.
But even I got confused recently and in the process screwed up a letter to the editor by our longtime contributor William P. Vandervelde of Burlington. My apologies up front here to Mr. Vandervelde for my mistake. In the editing process (the letter was a little too long for our Open Forum format but too short to be a guest column) I eliminated a line. Then I decided to restore it. In the process I fouled up the for and against part of Mr. Vandervelde’s message. For the record, Mr. Vandervelde is for Amendment One and urges others to also vote for it. All other parts of the letter make Mr. Vandervelde’s position very clear — as does the headline I wrote for the letter. But the last line is completely wrong and I take full responsbility.
I have corrected it online and will republish Mr. Vandervelde’s letter on Monday.
Believe me, I hate my mistakes more than people can know.
On the matter of Amendment One we have already published a ton of letters on both sides and have more to go. People feel very strongly about this matter. I’ll try to redouble my efforts to make their views clear and correct.
On the subject of guest columns about this issue: I have avoided them up to now for one very good reason, I don’t want to get 50 of them. I may publish one on either side — there are a few in hand already. Or I may just decide to let letters carry the day on this issue.
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.