In this case, Katherine Kersten makes a reasonable point.
The California decision vindicates Minnesotans who argue that a constitutional amendment is the only way to safeguard traditional marriage. During the 2006 debate, then-Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson and OutFront Minnesota both maintained that the amendment was unnecessary, because our state already has a "defense of marriage" act and because the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected same-sex marriage in a 1971 case.
This argument used by OutFront Minnesota and Dean Johnson against the Bachmann amendment was a wrong-headed argument. The arguments should have been more direct about why the amendment was wrong. The arguments should have been that marriage laws should be in statute and not in the constitution. When I debated Michele Bachmann on KKMS (Christian radio), the argument that worked the best, was when I talked about how it was wrong to put an unpopular minority up to a popular vote. I pointed out an effort to remove a segregation clause from Alabama's constitution failed in 2004. Soon after, a caller said they were troubled by this aspect of a constitutional amendment, even though the caller was strongly opposed to gays being included in the institution of marriage.