The marriage amendment puts the definition of marriage to a vote of the people in an attempt to protect it from judges and legislators. It will embed in the constitution the current legal definition of marriage in the state of Minnesota.

The argument that the amendment is unnecessary because the current law is not and will not be at risk is misguided, as evidenced by Iowa, where the state supreme court has already overruled the legislature’s definition of marriage. Proponents of the amendment point out that already in the last session of the Minnesota Legislature five bills redefining marriage were presented, and a lawsuit is currently moving through the Hennepin County courts that if successful would have the county issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. In any case, the marriage amendment, should it pass, will not necessarily be permanent. It can be overturned by a vote of the people through the same amendment process currently under way.

Minnesotans will decide how to vote on this issue. As has been the case with legislative races and the Voter ID amendment, the Pioneer Press is not endorsing one way or another.

And as to whether marriage is an issue that rises to the level of constitutional amendment status, not surprisingly the answer depends on whom you ask. For those who consider the amendment the last best defense of a critically important institution under assault by activists attempting to reverse centuries of collective wisdom, it easily clears the constitutional amendment bar. They would say that they too wish that a constitutional amendment were unnecessary to protect the institution, but that this is what it has come to. For those who oppose it and are confident that in time their view will prevail through the Legislature or the courts, the constitutional amendment process is inappropriate.

As it turns out, the debate isn’t exactly about equal rights and privileges. Opponents of the measure are clear that they do not want to settle for a civil union status that would guarantee the same rights and privileges to same-sex unions that are given to traditional marriages. It is “marriage” that they want. In effect, a union by any other name is not as sweet. This insistence on “marriage” as opposed to rights and privileges seems to be about same-sex marriage being blessed by governmental endorsement. Both sides clearly want the government to be in the marriage business; the difference is in how it’s defined. It’s the principle of the thing. Some argue that as a practical matter there seems to be less interest by same-sex partners in actually being married than in redefining what marriage is. In Iowa, for instance, Wikipedia reports, that only 815 same-sex couples married in the first year after legalization.

Arguments based on sameness, or business climate are attractive but perhaps too simple. Some people who argue for sameness when it comes to same-sex marriage are selective about the use of sameness, and are not so keen on the idea when it comes to taxation (they like it progressive) or college admissions (they support preferences). The business climate argument is not to be dismissed, but supporters of traditional marriage would say that it’s an issue that is bigger than economics, and that in any event it’s hard to imagine companies deciding on Minnesota rather than North Carolina based on the constitutional status of marriage.

Perhaps the most telling argument for same-sex marriage is the “love is love” approach. But as persuasive as it is, the love is love argument brings the discussion back to what should be the definition marriage. Love may be love, but even now there are any number of prohibitions around marriage between consenting (heterosexual) adults. These prohibitions are intended to be in the interest of promoting the general welfare. It all comes back to the initial question of the definition of marriage as a means of promoting the general welfare.

Here is the heart of the matter. Supporters of the amendment claim that marriage properly understood is an institution to promote and protect the stability of a biological family unit — mother, father and their children. Their position is that traditional marriage is child-centered and that the state has a special interest in promoting the biological family. They claim that marriage is the most pro-child institution we have — and the only institution that connects children with their parents. They hold that moving to a consenting-adults model and away from the child-centered model will damage the society in which we live in a significant way. Opponents point out that the love is love model is simple, obvious and cannot be shown in any way to undermine traditional marriage and families. The approach holds that marriage can be about both children and families, and include consenting adults who by definition cannot reproduce as a result of the union. Supporters of the amendment say it has to be one way or the other, while opponents say it can be both. Supporters say that to change the definition of marriage will damage the fabric of society by overturning centuries of accepted practice. Opponents say it will do no such thing.

Finally, the vote no coalition has been careful to steer clear of any whiff of forcefulness. Their television ads rely on happily married traditional couples advising that for reasons of love you should vote no. They wisely have struck a gentle rather than strident tone. Yet, supporters of traditional marriage are not wrong to point out that religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption and that religious groups have been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies as a result of having to choose between fulfilling their social mission and acquiescing to a new definition of marriage. And that whenever schools educate children about marriage they will have no choice but to teach it as a genderless institution. Indeed, some members of the movement are aggressive. In California, activists outed people who gave financial support to that state’s marriage amendment, some of whom lost jobs as a result. And we saw it here in Minnesota when Target Corporation was subjected to extensive protests for having contributed to a gubernatorial candidate who supported traditional marriage. It did not matter that Target had a long record of support for the GLBT community or that its contribution had nothing to do with the definition of marriage. It was about sending a message that those who took the wrong position on marriage would pay a heavy price. In Chicago, the mayor of one of the nation’s largest cities and a former high ranking White House official big-footed a fast food chain and its CEO for his belief in traditional marriage. For those who hold traditional beliefs about marriage, increasingly the force of law will be brought to bear on matters of education, speech and practice. Already in the course of ordinary reporting on this amendment, the Pioneer Press has encountered traditionalists who withhold their names for fear of the possible consequences of addressing the issue. None of which is to suggest that we do not support free speech and the right to protest and transparency in the political process. The point is that the story would be incomplete if it left out any mention of the consequences. And of course these consequences are appropriate or not depending on your stand on the issue itself.

So now it is up to you the voter to decide what is the best course. It is a decision both about what the definition of marriage should be, whether it is about children and the biological family or about consenting adults, and whether that decision should it put in the hands of the people by direct vote via a constitutional amendment, or kept in the hands of duly elected legislators and the judicial system.