Minnesota Supreme Court rulings Monday mean that proposed constitutional amendments on photo ID and same-sex marriage will go in November to voters in words chosen by their supporters in the Legislature.

While the decisions may be viewed as victories for the Republican-controlled Legislature, it still means that voters will have to do their homework to ensure that they fully understand the questions.

A proposed amendment titled “Photo Identification Required for Voting” will appear on the ballot, with the ballot question asking voters if they want to amend the state constitution “to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters. ...”

The amendment against gay marriage will be titled “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.” The ballot question, which was not challenged in the cases, will ask voters if the constitution should be amended so that “only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”

Regardless of the views on these two issues, we continue to believe that legislating via amendments to the Minnesota Constitution is not wise.

Some voters have expressed confusion over what voting “yes” or “no” to the amendments means.

In addition, philosophies of residents and the environment in which we live can change dramatically in just a few years. For example, at one point in time it was legal to own slaves and women could not vote.

Instead, we believe that these issues should have traveled through the tried and true process that Minnesotans should be able to trust to enact laws.

Our government is designed to allow the legislative branch to work in collaboration with the executive branch. And the people in each of the branches are elected by their constituents to reflect their views. And while that collaboration between branches hasn’t been seen frequently in recent years, bypassing that structure isn’t always wise.

A state’s constitution serves as the framework for its government, and amendments should strengthen that structure. But adding issues popular at a single moment in time could instead weaken the value of the constitution.