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.

Also, he says, since homosexuality is ac ACT, and since sex stops after marriage, the best way to do away with homosexuality entirely is to encourage them to marry!

He's a beaut, that Jeff.

to the airport. We had a great visit with Jeff.

--
Of the Troops & For the Troops

I'm jealous, been looking for a deal like that on a Woodsman for 10 years at least.

with a spare magazine...for sale for the same price. to you.

--
Of the Troops & For the Troops

I'm agreeing with a lot of that right there. Here in NC we voted down just such an amendment last spring. I'm with you in that I think it was voted down for a lot of the wrong reasons. I voted no because I didn't think it needed to be a constitutional amendment - maybe it's just not the government's business.

Rod M

Rod,

The Marriage Amendment passed the vote 61% to 39%.

and I feel greAT!

--
Of the Troops & For the Troops

I prefer to read about Woodsmen and the like over fretting about political things anyway.

My mind was pretty well made up before I posted the first question. The thing that irks me though is voting to keep such things out of the Constitution because they don't belong there, lumps me in with a group I'm not really part of.

.

.

--
Sincerely,

Hobie

Yep, when I'm not hanging around here, I'm really just a Obama-supporting, tree-hugging liberal.

It would help greatly if more judges stuck to simply interpreting what the Constitution actually says instead of using their position in the judiciary to impose their particular policy preferences on a wide variety of matters. Until that happens, expect a lot more amendments on things that would otherwise be left to our elected legislators.