A yes and a no on constitutional amendments

KnoxNews.com
October 20, 2006

Among the referendum items on the Nov. 7 ballot are two amendments for consideration for voters statewide. One enacts a stronger ban on same-gender marriage, and the other allows local governments to freeze property taxes for senior citizens.

The amendments call for a yes or no vote on the ballot. For ratification, each amendment requires a majority of yes votes, with the stipulation that the yes votes also must represent a majority of the total votes cast for all candidates for governor on the same ballot.

The property-tax freeze has sparked no controversy or opposition and only a minimum amount of publicity. It would permit the Legislature to establish a framework for city councils and county commissions to enact local ordinances to freeze property taxes on the primary residence of homeowners who are 65 and older.

The taxes would be frozen at the level they pay for the year they become 65 - or the year they purchase the home if it is after they turn 65. An income cap will be set by the Legislature if the amendment passes.

Passage would not automatically freeze property taxes for seniors. That would be a decision for the local governments.

The amendment's sponsor, Sen. Mark Norris, R-Collierville, said passage will bring Tennessee in line with other states that help their seniors, many of whom live on a fixed income, from burdensome taxation after they retire from their careers.

It is a good law, and we recommend a yes vote for this amendment.

The other amendment, a stronger ban on same-gender marriage, has been controversial from the outset. Opponents lost a court fight to keep it off the ballot.

State law in Tennessee already forbids same-gender marriage, but proponents of the amendment say they fear a state court decision could overturn the law, while a constitutional amendment would permit a change only by the voters in a future referendum.

The amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman and also prohibits legal recognition in Tennessee of same-gender marriages performed in other states.

In their arguments over the amendment proposal, both sides have stretched the truth a bit - to put it mildly. If the amendment passes, for example, it will not deprive anyone of rights that currently exist, since a Tennessee law already forbids same-gender marriage.

At the same time, a negative vote on the amendment will not automatically permit same-gender marriage in Tennessee. In fact, one article on the proponents' Web site says, "To date, same-sex marriage in most of the United States remains only a theory."

There also is the argument that the amendment protects marriage; yet about half of the marriages in the United States end in divorce, indicating there are many more serious problems facing the institution than same-gender couples.

Would this amendment, if it passes, reignite the efforts by some in the Legislature to prohibit same-gender couples from adopting children? Probably. That attempt was made last year and thankfully did not pass.

Tennessee does not need an amendment that consciously discriminates against any of its law-abiding citizens or could lead to such discrimination.

We cannot endorse this amendment, and we recommend a no vote.