The editors of the Twin Cities Pioneer Press all but endorse the Marriage Protection Amendment. We commend them for doing their best to present the choice voters face clearly:

"...Here is the heart of the matter. Supporters of the amendment claim that marriage properly understood is an institution to promote and protect the stability of a biological family unit -- mother, father and their children. Their position is that traditional marriage is child-centered and that the state has a special interest in promoting the biological family. They claim that marriage is the most pro-child institution we have -- and the only institution that connects children with their parents. They hold that moving to a consenting-adults model and away from the child-centered model will damage the society in which we live in a significant way. Opponents point out that the love is love model is simple, obvious and cannot be shown in any way to undermine traditional marriage and families. The approach holds that marriage can be about both children and families, and include consenting adults who by definition cannot reproduce as a result of the union. Supporters of the amendment say it has to be one way or the other, while opponents say it can be both. Supporters say that to change the definition of marriage will damage the fabric of society by overturning centuries of accepted practice. Opponents say it will do no such thing. 

...So now it is up to you the voter to decide what is the best course. It is a decision both about what the definition of marriage should be, whether it is about children and the biological family or about consenting adults, and whether that decision should it put in the hands of the people by direct vote via a constitutional amendment, or kept in the hands of duly elected legislators and the judicial system."