Time for a civics lesson, I guess.
Governments create laws that limit personal freedoms for the betterment of the general welfare. Constitutions form a framework under which those laws are made. Amendments to constitutions should create further limitations as to how much governments can encroach upon personal liberty; these are checks upon the power of the multitude upon the individual.
In the U.S. Constitution, the only amendment that has been repealed was the prohibition against the sale, distribution and consumption of alcoholic beverages. This was also the only one that limited what people could do, rather than what government could do.
There are currently two possible amendments to the Minnesota state constitution that will be on the ballot this year. Both of them limit people, rather than government. One of them, unlike amendments to the US constitution that enfranchised people who had not previously been allowed to vote, limits voting to those who have one of a few approved forms of photographic identification. Among other things, this disenfranchises those Amish who believe that a photograph of them is idolatry.
The other limits marriage to a man and a woman. Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. Marriage is already defined in Minnesota statutes as being between a man and a woman. This constitutional amendment serves no purpose but to preclude challenge of the current law as unconstitutional.
The Minnesota state constitution has had more than 100 amendments to it already, most of which were completely unnecessary. In 1974, the state constitution was deemed so unwieldy that it was completely rewritten. Since then, more needless amendments have been added, such as the 1996 amendment authorizing a bonus for Persian Gulf War veterans. Regardless of one's political opinions, the constitution is not the place for these frivolities.
Going up the country
1 day ago