On the Nov. 6 ballot, Minnesotans will be asked to vote “yes” or “no” on two proposed amendments to the Minnesota Constitution.
The first ballot question is entitled Proposed Constitutional Amendment 1:
“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”
The second ballot question is Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2:
“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?”
Neither deserves voter approval. Here are four reasons why each should be defeated:
Question 1:
1. The amendment is not needed because same-sex marriage is already not a legal option in this state.
2. In Minnesota, widely known as a progressive and enlightened state, we should not enshrine within our constitution blatant discrimination against any minorities – in this case gays and lesbians.
3. Contrary to scare tactics, there is no proof whatsoever that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to an erosion of man-woman marriage, and churches would not be forced to marry same-sex couples. And, again a reminder, voting “no” to this amendment will not legalize same-sex marriage; it is already illegal.
4. We should not allow legislative bully groups – in this case mainly right-wing extremists – to tinker with the constitution for political gain.
Question 2:
1. This is another unnecessary amendment because there is no evidence whatsoever of widespread voting fraud or even serious sporadic voter fraud. This is an effort to fix what is not broken.
2. Such a law will cost millions to implement, not to mention a tangled mess of regulations and voting-access hurdles to so many law-abiding prospective voters.
3. Any pathetic culprit determined enough to commit voter fraud could do it with a doctored I.D. as well as any other way.
4. With all of the despicable efforts nationwide to suppress people’s access to vote, this is one more law in Minnesota that we don’t need, an onerous law that would unnecessarily make it harder for diligent citizens to cast their ballots.
No doubt, there are sincere, well-meaning people arguing for both of those proposed ballot questions. To many, those amendment proposals may sound reasonable on the surface. However, with deeper research into both propositions, most reasonable people, we believe, would reject both as not only unneeded but contrary to the enlightened and long-cherished democratic values of the great state of Minnesota.
