Critics labeled the bill "discriminatory and mean-spirited," saying its language is so murky that it would set the stage for countless lawsuits. ...
Critics demanded evidence that gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage and asked about its impact on domestic partner benefits at such public institutions as the University of Minnesota.
Severson declined to address those questions.
All the politicians know the demographics and view points. A majority of people oppose gay marriage today, but that will change over the next twenty years. Enshrining this bigotry into the state's constitution will only make the fight more difficult when the balance of voters swing the other way.
Most importantly, however, if this does go to a direct vote, it must be perfectly clear what the people are voting for -- and what they are voting against. You can't put your trust in the will of the people while willfully working to keep them ignorant.