. . . There is a very important sense in which the marriage amendment is anything but "conservative": It rejects a longstanding and fundamental understanding of the function of a constitution that reaches hundreds of years into our history. While in one sense amendment proponents seek to preserve our heritage, in another and important sense they seek to destroy it. In their zeal to define marriage, social conservatives have run up against a conservative principle we should all care about – that the Minnesota Constitution should limit government, not the freedom of individuals.
Amendment proponents are concerned that "activist judges" might overturn the law that currently defines marriage, but that is true of all statutes, and it is no reason to upend the core purpose of a constitution. Many criminal statutes, for example, have been found unconstitutional, but we would not want to simply paste the criminal law into our state Constitution to solve that problem.
– Mark Osler
"Amendment is Wrong Way to Preserve Traditional Marriage"
August 25, 2012
August 25, 2012
See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Quote of the Day – October 20, 2011
Lisa Cressman's Concise, Reasonable Answers to Marriage Equality Questions
Quote of the Day – October 16, 2011
Law Professor: Marriage Amendment is Divisive and Mean-Spirited
A Catholic Rationale for Opposing the 'Marriage Amendment'
Recommended Off-site Link:
Catholic Q&A on the Minnesota 'Marriage Amendment' – Michael Bayly and Florence Steichen (Sensus Fidelium, August 7, 2012).