It seems difficult for some members of the Catholic and Baptist faiths when confronted with the anti-gay marriage amendment. There is a way to deal with this inner conflict...The State of MN already has a law on the books that says marriage is only between a man and a woman. You can hold that belief and still vote No on the amendment. It is important to decide carefully when to amend the Constitution of our state. At one time it was against the law in many places for a black person and a white person to marry. That law has changed. It is much more difficult to change the Constitution. If you have one single doubt you should vote "No" on this amendment, only because you think it should not be in the Constitution of the state.

This is exactly why we need a constitutional amendment~! Elaine says, "That law has changed", above, reminding us that laws are easier to change. If you feel that Marriage should only be between a man and a woman, voting No means that this law will change, and soon. This is the goal. Voting "Yes" this Fall is the only way to truly guarantee that Marriage remain as it is today.

Easy Vulcan, if my religious beliefs aren't the same as yours, why should yours be put into our civil constitution? I don't understand that those who have been claiming a lack of religious freedom can simultaneously impose their religious beliefs on me and others of my faith and other faiths whose leaders have opposed the amendment.

Fran, our constitution is based on religion. Am I missing something?

I'm wondering if we need to rethink our belief that the Minnesota Constitution really is harder to change than state laws.

We're seeing constitutional amendments precisely because the proposals couldn't make it through the law-making process. In other words, amendment supporters see it as an easier process than one that forces them to go through the governor. So I think it's more accurate to say that constitutional amendments pose different challenges than state statutes, not necessarily greater challenges.

Of course, the situation would be different if a single party ever gained control of both legislative chambers and the governor's office. And the above only applies to the Minnesota Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is clearly a whole different level of difficulty.

Still, I don't think we can take it for granted anymore that the Minnesota Constitution is so much harder to change. What do y'all think?