The last two constitutional amendments passed by Minnesota voters were a 2008 measure that set aside billions of dollars in sales tax money for the outdoors and the arts and a 2006 proposition that directed $300 million a year in state money to patching potholes, upgrading roads and improving public transit.
Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press
Interesting factoid. Over the last half dozen years, two constitutional amendments have passed in the state of Minnesota, both aimed at making Minnesota a better place for all. Patching potholes, upgrading our roadways, investing in the outdoors and the arts… Some may argue that we should spend tax dollars elsewhere or that one cause over another might be a better use for those dollars. But the prevailing fact is that both were aimed at making Minnesota better.
This marriage amendment that I’ve been talking about for the past 5 months doesn’t do that. It doesn’t make Minnesota better for all. Instead, it actually just rehashes an ugly debate that has already been settled in the state of Minnesota. Marriage is already defined in the state between one man and one woman. But outside influencers won’t stop at that. They want to ensure that committed gay and lesbian couples know their place in this world, and that place, to these amendment proponents, is not an altar.
I ask each Minnesotan to think about what our constitution was created to accomplish. It was to make this state great; it wasn’t to marginalize a group of individuals because one group or another disagrees with the definition of love. I’ve said it before, and I know that I will say it again, if we start voting on what rights minorities should and shouldn’t have, it’s going to be a scary future we’re faced with. At some point, what happens when one of those groups disagrees with YOU?