The voter ID and marriage amendments are quite possibly two things in this upcoming election that you’ve heard about as much, or almost as much, as the presidential candidates. Extensive campaigning has been taking place all over Minnesota ever since the decision to include the amendments in the November ballot was announced, especially after similar amendments have been battled out in other states with conservative victories.

Here’s a quick recap on the amendments and what they would entail if passed: the constitution of Minnesota would be amended so that 1) a government-issued ID would be required in order to vote, and 2) marriage would be defined as between one man and one woman. Both of them are highly restrictive to our freedoms.

The voter ID amendment appears to be one on which people have less of a set opinion, so let’s take care of that one first. The concept of the voter ID amendment seems very simple. Proponents’ main arguments allege that the voter ID amendment would at least reduce and at most completely eliminate voter fraud.

The voter ID amendment is addressing a non-existent issue. A survey of cases of voter fraud from the Minnesota County Attorneys Office conducted by two non-partisan organizations found that 0.0009% of 2008 voters were convicted of fraud. Even if proponents argue that this percentage should be brought down to zero, there are consequences we must be prepared to face if the amendment is passed.

This amendment would effectively end same-day registration and vouching. It would disproportionately disenfranchise a few select demographic groups of otherwise eligible voters. Senior citizens, college students, low-income families, individuals with disabilities, naturalized citizens and other racial minorities would be disenfranchised by the voter ID requirement. As opposed to how innocuous an amendment it appears to be at first, there are several steps that would need to be taken to procure a government-issued ID. Birth certificates are one; however, they are sometimes difficult to obtain for senior citizens and naturalized citizens, and if lost, they’re expensive to replace, a hurdle for low-income families. Many younger people who have recently moved or married don’t have government-issued IDs with their current addresses or names. According to the League of Women Voters, which opposes the amendment, as many as 18 percent of citizens ages 18-24 could be disenfranchised under this legislation.

Though the voter ID amendment appears to make perfect sense at first glance, it contains many pitfalls that aren’t so obvious. It’s not worth it to take away the right to vote for over 18 percent of Minnesota’s population to prevent cases of largely non-existent voter fraud.

The second amendment, the marriage amendment, is much more divisive and emotionally-charged issue than the voter ID amendment. It affects the lives of same-sex couples to an enormous extent; in fact, it affects me in a very personal way. It might affect you in a very personal way as well—and if not you, then it might affect one of or many of your friends, whether you know it or not.

Many proponents of the marriage amendment want to support their religion, and this is a topic that strikes very close to home, and I understand that, so I will do my best in the following portion of the article to respect those views, whilst making my case against the marriage amendment.

Just as a foreword: same-sex couples are not looking to tear down the very foundations our society is set upon. Same-sex couples are not looking to create Satanic cults, make everyone else gay-marry, or even redefine marriage for everybody. Our gay agenda consists mostly of trying not to oversleep and finishing homework before two A.M.

Now, this may seem obvious, but the reason I have decided to point this out is because there seems to be this perception that the moment gays and lesbians are allowed to marry their partners, there will be some drastic shift in the cosmic forces that somehow monumentally sets up a whole new set of morals for society.

That won’t happen. In fact, even if the marriage amendment is defeated in November, same-sex couples won’t be allowed to marry, so that’s not really even a talking point yet!

Something that most people seem to miss is that same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. The amendment would just add it into the constitution, which would be even more difficult to repeal when the time comes around when we want to start fighting for the right to marry. Right now, what we’re fighting for is just for same-sex marriage not to be banned in the Constitution. You can rest assured that even if you’re religious or a lover of traditional marriage, your voting “no” wouldn’t make same-sex marriage legal overnight.

How sure are you that you should stick to your religion in regards to gay rights? Keep in mind that your life doesn’t revolve around religion. You probably don’t go around thinking “oh man would Jesus approve if I nab a piece of candy from my friend?” You’d probably just take it, right?

So your life isn’t constantly weighed on a religious scale; however, a same-sex couple’s would be if the marriage amendment passes. Marriage actually grants many federal benefits to married couples, to which same-sex couples aren’t privy. Some of these benefits do affect their lives to incredible levels, such as visitation rights in hospitals or creating a joint life insurance trust. Should the lives of same-sex couples be weighed completely based on your religion, even when they may not share it? If you cannot provide a definitive answer of “yes,” perhaps you should consider voting “no” or abstaining from voting on the marriage amendment. Remember that if it is defeated, it doesn’t mean that same-sex marriage is legalized, it’s just one less obstacle that supporters of legalizing same-sex have to face.

I want to emphasize for both of these amendments, that who they target isn’t a grey mass that wants to destroy society. They both have far-reaching consequences for actual people that influence each and every one of our lives. I don’t want you to imagine faceless outlines of people with ill intent who will permanently be put in their place by passing these amendments. I want you to imagine people just like me, you, your friends and family, some of which will have to go through unnecessary struggles to exercise their voice in government, some of which will have to fight harder for permission—yes, permission—to love who they do.

If you have a friend who is a naturalized citizen of the United States, or a grand-parent who doesn’t have a birth certificate, then I want you to think about them when you’re at the ballot box this November. Would you tell them that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

If you have a friend or friends who are gay or lesbian, or if you know me, then I want you to think about their faces or mine when you’re at the ballot box this November. Would you tell them or tell me that we shouldn’t be allowed to marry who we love?

Many people might have their rights infringed upon this November over non-issues, but these amendments don’t have to pass. Go vote this November, and vote “no.” Minnesota isn’t a state that promotes this type of oppressive legislation, and we should let the nation know.

(I know that I’ve only covered maybe 0.0009% of the arguments used for and against both amendments, so I would love to be contacted if there are further questions or even if people would just like to discuss! – [email protected])