The Constitution content question below...

by Hoot , Diversityville, Liberal-sota, Thursday, October 25, 2012, 10:35 (4359 days ago)

First off, thanks for your replies. It confirms what was rolling around in my noggin. I particularly liked the quote in the site Brian referenced which says, "The fundamental purpose of the state constitution is to limit government's ability to infringe on people's rights." (http://www.mackinac.org/12509)

The ammendment put to the ballot this year is to change the wording in the state Constitution to add: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."

Today, there is no such definition.

It is a move by conservatives to make things considerably more difficult to get any sort of "same sex marriage" allowed without flatly outlawing such unions. I understand the tactic---liberals use it all the time to try and limit our gun rights.

Needless to say, there is an awful lot of emotion wrapped up in this topic. Everything from 'Vote yes for the children!' to 'Keep Minnesots Nice--Vote No.' Of course, the debate and emotion all focus on "same sex marriage". On this topic, I have strongly held views but, to me, that's not the real question.

The real question is, does this belong in the Constitution?

My guess is that the measure will be voted down.....but for all the wrong reasons.