Proper care and feeding of your Minnesota State Constitutional Amendment

Print

For a few years not so long ago, I worked in politics.  As some of you may know, on Minnesota’s birthday, Minnesota began the process of joining the ranks of a very special group of states; those that wish to put on a ballot whether or not our constitution should be amended to require  marriage be defined as only between one man and one woman.  Since this proposal involves a direct question to the populace and their constitution, this bill cannot be vetoed by our governor. 

While many Minnesotans, political geeks and those who pay any attention at all, have debated what this means for Minnesota and our future, I have been intrigued by the process.  A way to dodge the veto bullet and present a subtle campaign drive on the ballot – paid for completely by the people of the State of Minnesota, regardless of political persuasion.  Absolutely brilliant!  Additionally, as a crochet designer, I have a natural tendency to be curious and observant about fashion trends, the world around me, and what I hear when I eavesdrop on people.  As I watched our Senate discuss how the foundations of every thing we know as a society are based on heterosexual marriage, and how Minnesota may burst into a ball of flaming gas, should we ever recognize same-sex marriage, the gears were turning.  If this constitutional amendment thing works to get this ridiculous measure passed, maybe it will work for changes that actually mean something positive for Minnesotans! 

S.F. 1424 – “A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; banning men’s pants below the butt.”  I mean, really, who ISN’T going to vote green on THAT one!? 

S.F. 1425 – “A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; banning the simultaneous adornment of leggings and spiked heels in women OR men more than 20 pounds overweight.  ‘Overweight’ as defined in sec.2a, subsection c.”  We sure as heck don’t want to single anybody out, now do we? 

S.F. 1426 – “A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; banning use of a Bluetooth device within 100 feet of some one who DOESN’T give a shit about your stupid conversation.”  Another slam dunk. 

S.F. 1427 – “A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; recognizing the domestic union between ultra conservatives and their domestic pot bellied pigs.”  Politics is all about compromise, right? 

S.F. 1428 – “A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; recognizing that Nutella is the best damn thing EVER!” 

S.F. 1429 – “A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; banning all amendments to the Minnesota Constitution.” 

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you meaningful and relevant use of constitutional amendments to improve life here in Minnesota.  After all, what else should constitutional amendments be used for anyway?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.