According to conservative principle, state constitutions are supposed to specify how governments should be organized and to set forth the ideals on which governments should operate. Constitutions are not supposed to be dumping grounds for social policy. Setting forth social policy is the job of the legislature. By that classical American standard, two questions on Tuesday's S.C. election ballot deserve different fates.

Question 1, the marriage amendment, fails to meet this test. The amendment would specify that a marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that the state will recognize. A 1996 law in no immediate danger of legislative repeal or court invalidation already makes this clear.

Question 1 supporters argue that some judge without a sense of restraint could invalidate the 1996 law and order the General Assembly to legalize gay and lesbian marriages. But the elevation of heterosexual monogamous marriage to constitutional status would offer no protection against such a judge. He or she could still declare the marriage amendment to be in conflict with the constitutional provision that every South Carolinian deserves equal protection under the law or with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which supersedes state constitutions.

In a meeting with The Sun News this week, S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster, who supports passage of Question 1, said the S.C. equal protection clause doesn't apply to marriage, as marriage is a privilege, not a right. We take that to mean that the 1996 law stands as good a chance of surviving a judicial challenge as the proposed amendment would. The Sun News recommends a no vote on Question 1.

Question 2, however, merits voter passage as it would improve the organization of the S.C. General Assembly. The first part of the question would empower both houses to adjourn for more than 30 days on a two-thirds vote. The second part of the question would eliminate the requirement that one house can't adjourn without the permission of the other. Passage of both parts could shorten legislative sessions - considered to be intolerably long by many South Carolinians - and streamline the operation of the General Assembly. The Sun News recommends that voters say yes to both parts of Question 2.

Question 4, reloaded

We erred Wednesday in saying that the five-year 15 percent cap to property valuation increases proposed in Question 4 would apply to owner-occupied houses. The amendment would apply to all taxable property, including rental and commercial property.

However, our basic objection to the amendment remains valid. According to a study by the Strom Thurmond Institute at Clemson University, the net effect of the amendment over time would be to redistribute the tax burden to taxable property valued at less than $200,000.

Commercial property arguably deserves a tax break. This year's tax-swap legislation deletes the school operations portion of the property tax from homeowners' tax bills, cutting total property taxes by more than half. This places more school mill levy pressure on business buildings. But if the legislature wants to provide tax relief for business buildings, it should do so directly. The tax cap is unfair to middle- and lower-income South Carolinians. They, especially, should vote no on Question 4.