commentaries

This is now "the biggest, baddest democratic process of them all"? Somehow I imagine that Mr. Banks was thinking and saying no such thing when the same process was used to raise our taxes for the environment and the arts. This is a much more democratic process than facing the possibility of the courts overturning existing laws like was done in Iowa.

Courts can also overturn discriminatory state constitutional amendments.

We need the courts to ensure that various groups receive equal protection under the law. A case in point is the 1967 US Supreme Court decision to overrule those states that continued to make it illegal for interracial couples to marry. Those people against interracial marriage had all kinds of arguments against the "mixing" of the races which some saw as an affront to morality and their religious beliefs. Fortunately, the courts stepped in and corrected a wrong. The same will eventually happen for same-sex marriage. Similar to interracial marriage, there is no rational reason to deny legalizing same-sex marriage and the US Supreme Court will eventually confirm this.

The argument is not based on homosexuality. The argument is how should state law recognize the form of marriage. It allows the citizens of Minnesota to have a say before some advocacy group finds a judge or state executive officer who is sympathetic to their cause and give them their way. If that is the definition of badest, well that is democracy.

Democratic process 3 times? this is a Republican Process created to get the religious vote,the State should not be in the business of siding with religious to descrimate against a minority of the population because of their religious viewes.the states can grant a marrage licence to who ever wants one and the churches should have no say in that matter. however the churches will spend millions to stop the states in doing what they are allowed to do.I say make the churches pay taxes or butt out.and let them spend their money on the sick and the poor that the Republicans want us to turn to when we get ill or elderly. watch where the money comes from in this debate.and don`t patronize them...I won`t

Banks skips over the real question: whether we have any business using referendums to truncate equal protection of citizens who belong to a minority. It's no secret that republicans pushed this idiotically toxic amendment onto the ballot with the belief that they could politically exploit the anti-gay animus of conservative voters, motivating them to show up at the polls. And just as marriage requires no "protection" - the red herring claim used to window dress the otherwise barely concealed bigotry behind the Marriage Amendment, let's also not overlook Voter ID, another potential referendum issue we may see on the ballot this year, and its blatant attempt to truncate the voting rights/equal protection of minorities and students with yet another serving of red herring, the claim of stopping the otherwise non-existent plague of "voter fraud." So, one is designed to get republican voters to the polls, the other to prevent democratic voters from coming to the polls. Both score score high on the mendacity quotient. We seeing a theme here or what - other, that is, than the profound contempt for this nation and its people with which the republicans exercise their political values?

Banks' piece goes a bit overboard. If popular opinion is so heavily skewed so as to allow the state constitution to be amended in one direction, then surely, should popular opinion become as heavily skewed in the opposite direction, the constitution can be amended again. But in the end the State cannot legislate morality. This has no business even being an "issue", especially when we as a state and a nation have far more pressing and legitimate issues to deal with.

Umm.. wasn't the Constitution and our Bill Rights set up to give us rights - not take them away? This is amendment is completely backwards on its face, not to mention discriminatory. Passing this is a huge slippery slope and ugly. Today its gay marriage, tomorrow its... From the side that is so against big gov't, this is certainly the biggest "big gov't" play of my lifetime - I'm 35.

This is about making freedom of religion unconstitutional.

tbot2000 - NO, the Constitution was NOT set up to give us rights. The Constitution was set up to give specific and limited rights to the new federal government. As individuals and separate states we already had all of the rights. That is why states have always had the right to do far more than the federal government - although even this continues to be changed. This is not the biggest "big government" play of even the last four years - that would be what is affectionately called "Obamacare."