Just as Tennessee voters will have an opportunity to choose between various candidates for state and federal offices, they will also have an opportunity to decide on two proposed amendments to the state constitution. The wording of the proposed amendments have led to some confusion among voters and some people are asking what exactly they are being asked to decide. After looking at the proposed amendments, it's easy to see how someone could get lost in the wording.

In an effort to try to clear up some of the confusion and - contrary to the opinion of some people - try to help out by explaining the proposed amendments.

Proposed constitution amendment number one deals with the so-called "gay marriage ban." The amendment simply asks the question if legal marriage in Tennessee should be only between one man and one woman. If you agree that's how marriage should be defined, vote yes. If you believe marriage should be defined another way - such as same sex, multiple partners, or any other way, vote no.

There has been a small amount of controversy regarding the second proposed amendment. When state officials printed the official ballots, the wording of the second proposed amendment was left incomplete. In an effort to correct the oversight, the corrected ballot will be advertised in six different newspapers whose coverage reaches all 95 counties (translation: the major daily papers of the state in Knoxville, Nashville, Memphis, Chattanooga, and the Tri-Cities). Posters will also be distributed for display in each voting precinct and voting machines will have a letter sized notice concerning the proper wording. This is how the correction will read:

"The ballot language that you will see on the ballot describing the proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2 is incomplete. The proposed question should read as follows:

Shall Article II, Section 28, of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee be amended by inserting the following language immediately after the fourth paragraph

(a) The legislative body of any county or municipality may provide by resolution or ordinance that:

(1 ) Any taxpayer who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older and who owns residential property as the taxpayer's principal place of residence shall pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed at the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted;

(2) Any taxpayer who reaches the age of sixty-five (65) after the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted, who owns residential property as the taxpayers principal place of residence, shall thereafter pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed in the tax year In which such taxpayer reaches age sixty-five (65); and

(3) Any taxpayer who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older, who purchases residential property as the taxpayer's principal place of residence after the taxpayers sixty-fifth birthday, shall pay taxes in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax imposed on such property in the tax year in which such property is purchased.

(b) Whenever the full market value of such property is increased as a result of improvements to such property after the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted, then the assessed value of such property shall be adjusted to include such increased value and the taxes shall also be increased proportionally with the value.

(c) Any taxpayer or taxpayers who own residential property as their principal place of residence whose total or combined annual income or wealth exceeds an amount to be determined by the General Assembly shall not be eligible to receive the tax relief provided in subsection (a) or (b)?"

Essentially what the amendment is asking is do you support giving senior citizens (by definition anyone age 65 or older) a break on their property tax? Read carefully though. This proposed amendment does not extend to all senior citizens - it only applies to people whose income/wealth falls below an amount yet to be decided by the state legislature. At the very best, it is a limited tax break, but a break nonetheless. You will be asked to vote yes if you approve the granting the tax break or no if you're against it.

In attempting to explain these proposed amendments, I have made an effort not to endorse either. While I have an opinion on both of these proposals, the point of this column was not to give my opinion. If you want to know my opinion, call me and I'll gladly tell you. The point of this column has been (hopefully) to inform you, the reader, and allow you to make up your own mind. People have enough talking heads and political ads telling them how to think. I do hope that everyone will put some thought into the voting process before they cast a ballot for anyone or anything. Don't be swayed by anything but your own convictions and beliefs.

I also encourage every eligible voter to go to the polls. The old saying is "if you don't vote you can't complain." I do vote and as you well know, I complain. A lot.

Please join me.

Richard Evans is Editor of the Claiborne Progress