Changing the constitutions because of gays

In the last election, Michigan had a proposal that banned gay marriage (worded differently, but it is still the same.) I split from most others in my party, and from a good chunk of the Democrats, to vote down Proposal 2. Unfortunately, however, Proposal 2 passed with over 60% approval. Ingham County, which is where I am registered, was on of only a handful of counties where Proposal 2 was defeated, thank you MSU students. Although same sex benefits that had been established for couples before Nov. 2 are still intact, new contracts will not be offered.

I am still amazed at how easy it was for Michigan to amend the constitution. Think about it. It takes only 50% + 1 of the population to do it. A few hundred thousand signatures and an amendment proposal is on the ballot. Contrast that with the federal constitution and how difficult it is to amend that sucker. There have only been 27 amendments. Interestingly enough, the 27th Amendment was first proposed along with the Bill of Rights but wasn’t ratified until 200 years had passed. Talk about a long time to wait. So that’s partly why I believe President Bush will get nowhere with a marriage amendment. It’s just too difficult.

But today, another state is taking the steps to keep gays from getting married-- the state of Indiana. Indiana has a more difficult way to amend their constitution. Gay interests groups, advocates, and whoever else, have at least until 2008 to launch a preemptive attack on the government. This is because it takes the approval of two separately elected legislatures to pass the proposal before it is presented to the voters. This session of the legislature has passed it. Now they have to wait until the next session does.