We're halfway into our season of marriage-amendment discontent. Much has been said since the ballot question was approved by the Legislature in May, and much more will be said before the referendum is held in November.
Just one friendly reminder:
The question that Minnesotans will vote on is not whether same-sex marriage (currently forbidden under state law) should be allowed, but whether the very possibility that it might be allowed should be extinguished more thoroughly by means of a specific definition of marriage in the state Constitution.
Yes, the underlying question for most people is whether homosexuality is natural or intolerable in the first place, or -- one level up -- whether those oriented to it should be able to receive the same public benefits for formalizing a relationship that heterosexuals do.
That's where the debate has been focused.
But the operative question is still whether a law put in place by democratic processes is so at threat of repeal by further democratic processes that it must be carved in stone by the biggest, baddest democratic process of them all.
Until death do us part. Or at least until we all get together and vote again.
* * *
David Banks is the Star Tribune's assistant commentary editor.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.