Here in Minnesota, there is a referendum set on the ballot for November that would amend the Minnesota Constitution to prohibit marriage between anyone except a man and a woman.  It’s the so-called, Marriage Amendment.

I don’t want to get into the religious or moral issues as my blog focuses on legal issues instead.  I have a few points to make for people that will, hopefully, cause them to think before they vote–whichever side they’re on regarding this issue.

1.  Minnesota already has a statute prohibiting marriage by anyone other than a man and woman.  Generally, statutes are passed by the legislature to prohibit or limit our personal freedoms.  A good example are criminal statutes.  They can be changed either by the legislature or by the Supreme Court if they determine the statute is unconstitutional.  We need this flexibility when it comes to laws that limit our freedoms.  For instance, the possession of marijuana in Minnesota used to be a felony level offense, punishable by prison time.  The legislature has changed the statute to make possession of a small amount of marijuana a petty misdemeanor, similar to a parking ticket.

2.  Constitutional amendments are generally passed to limit the government.  A good example is the first amendment which prohibits the government from limiting free speech.  The point of the proponents of the “marriage amendment” is that, once passed, it is very difficult to change a constitutional amendment.  Do we really want that inflexibility regarding a proposed law that will limit our freedoms?

3.  Since it’s difficult to change a constitutional amendment, we should all be careful about passing any amendments.  For those who support the “marriage amendment,” they don’t see a problem  However, what if an issue arises in the future that those same people oppose and it passes as a constitutional amendment?  My point is that the amendment process can be equally inflexible and permanent for any issue.  

Be careful what you ask for!!