Michigan voters deserve another chance to vote on same-sex marriage
Gay rights advocate Vin Testa waves a rainbow flag in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday morning as he wait for the Supreme Court to issue its ruling on gay marriage.
J. Scott Applewhite | AP Photo
-
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken on gay marriage, last week declaring unconstitutional a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denies benefits to gay couples, Michigan has an opportunity to reconsider its own laws regarding same-sex unions.
Before the ruling was handed down, Democrats, including local legislators Jeff Irwin and Adam Zemke of Ann Arbor, introduced a package of bills to allow same-sex marriage in Michigan. If passed, along with similar measures introduced in the Senate, the legislation would put the question of same-sex marriage where we think it belongs, before voters.
It’s been more than nine years since Michigan residents last voted on this issue. In 2004, they voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and to ban other unions.
A lot has changed since then. The tide of public opinion in the nation, as well as in Michigan, has clearly been moving toward acceptance of gay marriage. In May, a poll conducted by Glengariff Group Inc. found More than 56 percent of respondents in Michigan said they support same-sex marriage, up 12.5 percentage points from last year, while 54 percent said they favor replacing the state's constitutional ban with language allowing same-sex marriage.
If legislators in both the House and Senate pass bills amending the state constitution by a two-thirds majority, voters will get another say on the matter.
Other bills in the legislative package would recognize same-sex marriages that were licensed in other states, make other changes directly to Michigan's marriage laws regarding who is allowed to marry, and call on the U.S. Congress to repeal DOMA, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states.
We urge lawmakers to let voters have their say on this important issue once again.
Comments
Judy
Tue, Jul 2, 2013 : 6:23 p.m.
Many people are extremely uncomfortable around a minority of homosexuals and Do not like it, any more than the following story on Yahoo News this morning: A Belgian mother and her diplomat husband were thrown out of a posh country club after she breastfed at the table, according to a story published Sunday in the New York Post. Was this mother and her daughter denied their human rights?
ManA2
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 1:24 a.m.
A question and a comment. Nine years ago the state voted for a constitutional ban. Given the way the polls have moved, I'd assume this will come to a vote again and the ban will be reversed. If polls move back the other way after that - probably unlikely but possible - how do you avoid this bouncing back and forth? To someone's point, our state constitution is not treated like something that should be changed only rarely. And whatever your point of view on this issue, it certainly doesn't seem like this should move back and forth. Maybe public opinion has moved decisively and will stay that way, making my question moot.
Bubba43
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 12:02 a.m.
You just keep bringing it up & up until you get what you want & it's costing the tax payers money to run the polls.
Richard Carter
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 1:20 a.m.
Bringing it up every few years, especially when polls in Michigan and throughout the nation show a strong shift in attitude, is not such a bad thing. Though I do get your point in a way, I think it's a matter of proportion. If Congress were to keep voting every few weeks, month after month, to repeal something, like, say, Obamacare, that has strong support, that would feel like a big waste of time and money.
C.C. Ingersoll
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 1:14 a.m.
My apologies that a couple of your tax dollars are going towards granting human rights to your next-door neighbor. Look at it this way; at least it's not going towards 1% for art(?)
Jaime Magiera
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 11:06 p.m.
The Pew polling group is well respected. They show a clear shift towards supporting gay marriage in Michigan. The tide is turning as more and more people become empathetic towards the need for equals rights. It's going to happen. Those who embrace the change will feel a weight lifted from their shoulders as they become less fearful of gay folks. Those who do not embrace the change will simply become angry, bitter, frustrated and withdrawn from their fellow citizens - just like the crop of old-time racists from the 1900s that fought against segregation. Liberate yourself from hatred and fear of people whose only difference is that they happen to love someone of the same sex. It will open a whole new world to you.
Jaime Magiera
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 11:10 p.m.
against de-segregation*, gotta watch my negatives
JGA2trueblue
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 6:43 p.m.
I am quite certain the majority will remain the same if asked to vote. Just because a minority wants something, does not mean they should receive it. I also do not believe the majority of Michigan voters - NO MATTER WHAT "OBSCURE" POLL figures are cited - feel differently. Polls are slanted and manipulated. This is very liberal A2. Those are the facts - just like marriage is between a man and a woman. NO ONE has the right to change that definition.
sayzme
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 7:31 p.m.
Sorry, haven't you heard? You aren't the majority anymore!
mavfunn
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 5:01 p.m.
Here's an example of the conservative mindset that ignores facts in favor of the desired agenda of oppression of "the other." Polls of residents across MI (i.e., not limited to A2) indicate that support of same sex marriage has a slight majority now. It's intellectually dishonest to choose personal belief over fact.
Robert Hughes
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 12:22 p.m.
"Between a man and a woman". Does that include, or exclude, transexuals in your view JGA? And if it excludes transexuals (who have gone through hell and back to get there sex reassigned) then why is that the case? Additionally, not everyone defines marriage the way you do, JGA. Did you notice that? Or are you that egotistical?
West Park
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 6:21 p.m.
Why not simply eliminate marriage? It's the cause of tremendous suffering. If you find a man, woman, frog or turtle that makes you happy, throw a party to celebrate. Be kind to yourself and others. Tell the truth. Don't do anything that you don't want to do.
greg s
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 5:55 p.m.
doesn't everyone deserve to be happy in there lifetime? I think So.
4 Real
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.
As one who identifies as gay, I find it offensive that my rights get put to a popular vote. It is then incumbent upon me to defend my worth to the greater community; to prove that I am either worthy or deserving of such rights. The thought actually makes me sick to my stomach. Who else in our society stands in judgement before their peers? Criminals.
Robert Hughes
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 8:57 p.m.
Oops meant to say "same sex".
Robert Hughes
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 12:20 p.m.
Narnia, the point is that a heterosexual person gets to be with some one in marriage that they are inherently attracted to, while a homosexual person does not. That is one way that the rights of gays are trampled over by our society. Would you for instance want to marry someone of the opposite sex, Narnia? The answer is no, and it likely stems from your not being attracted to them in that way. Remember, from the beginning, we agreed it would be about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
4 Real
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 5:34 p.m.
Narnia, "hooking up" implies dating or casual sex. My long term relationship reflects neither. When did you choose to be straight?
Peter
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 5:32 p.m.
Narnia, when did you choose to be straight?
Narnia
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 5:08 p.m.
As a practicing heterosexual, I can be fired from my job and be denied service as well. I also can't file a joint return with someone I am not married to. You are legally entitled to visit anyone in the hospital and you can inherit property if you set up the legal paperwork. No one forces anyone to choose to have a relationship with another individual of the same sex. You are free to select the benefits of your choice. If you find it more beneficial personally to hook up with someone of the same sex, no one is stopping you.
4 Real
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:38 p.m.
Narina, that actually is not true. For instance, I can be fired from my job or denied service in a restaurant. I can't file a joint return with my partner, nor adopt their children. I can be denied access to ny partner in the hospital, and lose my home upon my partner's death. I can go on at length, as there are over 600 incidences of discrimination on the Michigan books.
Narnia
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:30 p.m.
In the State of Michigan, you have the same exact rights as anyone else. If you choose not to marry a person of the opposite sex, that's your perrogative.
sh1
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 3:34 p.m.
Here is an update on what happened (and what didn't happen) in the Netherlands a decade after gay marriage was made legal there: http://www.euronews.com/2013/04/01/reflecting-on-12-years-of-gay-marriage-in-the-netherlands/.
C.C. Ingersoll
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 1:09 a.m.
To the responders: And your point is? In the last 50 years the number of single parent families in the US has risen more than 200% http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in/ Compared to this a +30% increase in 10 years doesn't seem that bad and a statistical equivalent rise in a post-industrial country. In fact -- one might argue that gay marriage in the Netherlands has slowed the increase in single-parent families...
mavfunn
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:41 p.m.
It seems like the biggest consequence of gay marriage is that hatred toward gay people still exists.
arborarmy
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.
I am always fascinated by how conservatives reject European examples (American Exceptionalism, don't ya know) except when it serves their narrow, bigoted point of view.
Narnia
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 3:51 p.m.
30% increase in single parent families! http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/ 2008/2008-2546-wm.htm
Narnia
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 3:49 p.m.
http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-2546-wm.htm
Narnia
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.
Marriage is between one man and one woman for biological, economic, and moral reasons. By changing the definition and function of marriage, it diminishes this important societal structure. When gay marriage became law in the Netherlands, most heterosexuals decided not to marry, just to live together. The ceremony lost its significance and became just a "piece of paper". However, these couples remained unmarried even after they had children. Without the constraints of a legal marriage, these couples split up much more quickly than married couples. In less than one generation, a majority of children in the Netherlands now grow up in single parent households under impovershed conditions. Children are hurt. They also lack the constant association with both male and female role models in their family unit that allow them to develop healthy gender identities themselves. When children are raised by non-biological parents, they are far more susceptible to sexual predation by adults. Children raised by either single parents or homosexual parents are far more likely to have difficulty in school, drop out at increased rates, use drugs, get involved in criminal activities, be sexually promiscuous, and have higher incidences of both depression and suicide. These facts are documented in peer reviewed scientific journals. We should not, as a post-Christian society, automatically exclude moral choices that are consistent with a Biblical worldview. God's rules are not arbitrary, but intended for our benefit.
arborani
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 7:39 p.m.
My ad hominem reply would be deleted - and probably rightly so. So, Narnia, have a nice day.
Robert Hughes
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 12:15 p.m.
Narnia, you said: Marriage is between one man and one woman for biological, economic, and moral reasons. However, in many cases this doesn't pan out. An old couple might marry (well beyond their child-bearing or financially productive years); a woman or man in a marriage might be sterile; or might practice abstinence in their sexual life to avoid having children. A free person might marry a prisoner. These examples lay waste to your arguments for biology or economy. As for morality; there are many abusive couples in marriages right now. Perhaps you are implying that same sex sexual relations is immoral? If so why? And what defines sexual relations? In some countries men hold hands, kiss (on the cheek - bussing I believe it is called), and dance together. In our culture any of these activities would be considered foreplay by many people; are these other cultures inherently immoral? Wasn't there something about love your brother as your self in the bible? Wouldn't that extend to things that other person does in private with another consenting adult which in no way hurt you?
Richard Carter
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 1:15 a.m.
The Bible has more than one definition of marriage... there are marriages between one man and many women... it's not always one definition, and it doesn't say there are no others.
BenWoodruff
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 8:43 p.m.
Like most of the West European nations, the Dutch have a high standard of living. In 2000, the nation's GDP per capita was US$25,695. According to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, the Netherlands ranks number-eight in the world in human development, ahead of nations such as Japan and the United Kingdom, but behind countries such as the Canada, Norway, and the United States. This report measures such features as income, literacy, and life span. The wealthiest 10 percent of the population control 24.7 percent of the kingdom's wealth while the poorest 10 percent only control 2.9 percent. The poverty rate in the Netherlands is 4.7 percent of families. This gives the nation one of the lowest poverty rates in Europe, second only to nations such as Sweden, and well ahead of countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the United States. Compare to US... God's rules not arbitrary? Can I eat shellfish or not? Stone my disbodient son? Sell my daughter? Can I wear cotton and polyester, or should I be stoned?
Jessica Webster
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:46 p.m.
Teens Raised by Lesbian Parents Tend to Be Smarter, Happier: Study says that children raised by lesbian parents perform better in school and are happier in life. http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/12990/20121105/teens-raised-lesbian-parents-tend-smarter-happier.htm
mavfunn
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:38 p.m.
"God's rules" don't matter in a secular society (and well, God doesn't exist in the first place, and those rules ARE arbitrarily created by humans). We don't live in a theocracy, and you have no evidential support for your claims. In fact, research has shown that children are NOT hurt, for example, by being raised by same sex parents (which is yet another distraction from the core issue of same sex marriage). You're just another person without any rational basis to oppose same sex marriage; you just have a religious agenda you're trying to pass off as legitimate when it's actually laughable.
mgoscottie
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:19 p.m.
By your logic that only the best of something should be allowed to marry, you're implying that anyone of the following groups should not be allowed to marry: Divorced People Black people Hispanic people White people Men Christians as well as many others.
sh1
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 3:31 p.m.
I'm curious why anyone would "vote down" my comment. I'm only asking for proof for an outrageous statement. If you have the proof that children of gay couples have these problems more than in the straight community, at least share it here after you vote my comment down.
sh1
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 3:09 p.m.
I dare you to find any reliable research that supports your statement that, "Children raised by either single parents or homosexual parents are far more likely to have difficulty in school, drop out at increased rates, use drugs, get involved in criminal activities, be sexually promiscuous, and have higher incidences of both depression and suicide."
clownfish
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:33 p.m.
Again, for the fourth time...I would like to read a conservative rational for denying consenting adults the ability to enter into a contract and the ability to live with whom they choose. No bible scripture, no mythological fear of people marrying their dogs, no revisionist history of "traditional marriage", just a rational based on conservative principles of less government intrusion into peoples lives. Anybody?
Judy
Tue, Jul 2, 2013 : 6:18 p.m.
I agree with mgoscottie, most people are extremely uncomfortable around a minority of homosexuals and Do not like it, any more than the following story on Yahoo News this morning: A Belgian mother and her diplomat husband were thrown out of a posh country club after she breastfed at the table, according to a story published Sunday in the New York Post.
1bit
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 5:57 p.m.
@clownfish: Part of the problem is that many people are defining "marriage" differently. Are you defining marriage as a "contract and the ability to live with" a partner of one's choosing? If not, how exactly would you define marriage? What rights/privileges would you ascribe to it? Personally, I'm generally for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
mavfunn
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:35 p.m.
mgoscottie is correct. There is no rational objection to same sex marriage, only irrational fear of "the other," which is how bigots try to paint homosexuals and try to make them responsible for the discrimination heaped upon them.
mgoscottie
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
This isn't how I feel, but I think most just are extremely uncomfortable around a minority of homosexuals and Do not like it. It is new to them or they are off put by it. The lashing out is to avoid it being something wrong with them and to try and make it the fault of homosexuals.
amlive
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.
While I would love to see the citizens of our State given another chance on this issue, I can't say I agree that this is the best avenue to ensure lasting equal rights. Rules set in place by our State constitutional amendment process are fickle, requiring little more than a well funded campaign to convince a simple majority to enact any rules they feel like at the time. Instead I feel this amendment should stay as it is and not be overturned by the fickle will of the people, but rather by a more durable review by the courts. To have a discriminatory amendment passed and then ruled unconstitutional by the courts can provide a better assurance of lasting rights than to simply vote that the rights be granted in a way that could be lost with another vote if the public opinion regresses in the future. If we were talking about an Equal Rights Amendment in our National Constitution this would be a different matter, but good luck getting that passed.
Basic Bob
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:11 p.m.
I see how this is going. Michigan voters deserve a chance to vote like I believe. If they don't, I'm getting a lawyer and taking it to the Supreme Court.
Steve
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.
Basic Bob-The unelected judges are not there to make laws, but to settle cases under those laws. If a majority of those judges deem a law unconstitutional then it is not activism but a legal responsibility to strike down that law. Its funny to me that you were so protective of the Michigan Constitution in the fight about Union rights, but you obviously support the huge overreach that was done with this Amendment.
Basic Bob
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 5:37 p.m.
@seldon, Why bother having a vote at all? We'll just skip over that part and let unelected judges make all the rules. Because judges never make mistakes when it comes to interpreting fundamental rights.
seldon
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:53 p.m.
This should be basic enough for you, Bob: where fundamental rights are concerned, the majority doesn't have the right to take them away from a minority.
Brad
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:35 p.m.
No, but a minority can elect a president that violates the constitution. Thanks again, Bush voters.
clownfish
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.
Welcome to America, where we have this thing called "check and balance" and a Court set up specifically to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws. The Majority cannot pass laws that violate the Constitution.
Robert Granville
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
I wonder how the conservative arguments will change now that they aren't in the majority.
Sylvanman
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 8:04 p.m.
Why is this a "conservative" issue? Social conservative, maybe. And what are you people talking about? The majority, including blacks and hsipanics, are against gay marriage but by a slim margin favor civil unions. Nope, not good enough, gotta "in your face" the social conservative or those who oppose on religious grounds with gay "marriage." Congrats. The supreme court decision (not the majority of USA) or the evolution of it, will result in many unintended (by the gays community) but predicted social moves - like legal polygamy and who knows what else. You might want to recognize that state's rights were major part of the decisions. California case dismissed on jurisdictional issues, not the merits of the case and DOMA was state's right only, not a recognition that gay marriage was constitutionally protected.
Skyjockey43
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 7:27 p.m.
As opposed to good liberals like Alec Baldwin who proclaim their support for gay causes from one side of his mouth, then takes to twitter to call a gay journalist a "queen" from the other side of his mouth. And for the record, all of the Tea Party conservatives I know, including myself, want less government control of our lives. And this includes the power to decide who and who can't get married.
mavfunn
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:31 p.m.
Conservatives tend to remain in denial of facts when it suits their desired agenda, so don't expect their arguments to change at all. They're still pretending like opposition to gay marriage is a majority position.
mgoscottie
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1:08 p.m.
Still have a majority of wealth I believe which counts for a lot unfortunately.
seasons
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1 p.m.
It was very sad that this became an amendment in the first place - inappropriate and uncalled for. Yes, we do need to get rid of this amendment as it advocates for flagrant discrimination.
dsponini
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 1:09 p.m.
It was very sad, and the TV commercials to ban same sex marriage were horribly misleading.
Dog Guy
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:53 p.m.
And any people refusing to serve these weddings shall suffer extreme legal penalties for their hate crimes.
Judy
Tue, Jul 2, 2013 : 6:35 p.m.
Clownfish, it was within the last month that a bakery (I think it was Colorado) who was sued because the owner refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. You should google it.
Richard Carter
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 1:11 a.m.
Why bother punishing them? They'll likely just go out of business as the tide has shifted in favor of gay marriage.
clownfish
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.
Can you cite an example of this from any of the states that allow same sex marriage? Are you able to show how any harm has been done to society or any individual in those states because of their new rules allowing two adults of the same sex to enter into contracts of betrothal?
amlive
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:21 p.m.
Don't worry - I'm pretty sure that in our State business owners can still legally have a "We Serve Straights Only" sign in their window, or have separate (doesn't even have to be equal) Straight and Gay entrances, drinking fountains, and bathrooms. Seriously - i'm fairly sure there are no laws against doing that here if you want to.
Not from around here
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:28 p.m.
Come on why risk it? Let a select group of activist judges subvert the will of the people. It's the democratic way. If they put it to a vote and your side looses, are you willing to sit on your hands and except it? Or will you use whatever means legal and illegal to force your beliefs on the majority? If so, why bother voting?
mavfunn
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:29 p.m.
Given that most Michiganders now support same sex marriage, "the will of the people" and what "the majority" thinks is no longer what you claim it is. And like Peter said, a primary purpose of having a constitution is to protect the rights of minorities rather than banning them. There is simply no rational justification to ban same sex marriage, and even the majority doesn't want to anymore. It's time to get over it already.
Peter
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.
The constitution (the US Constitution) exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It's unfortunate that you seem to believe that might makes right, and that a simple majority of votes should be sufficient to deny human rights to people.
David Briegel
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:18 p.m.
Just don't take away the discriminatory authority of the majority. No matter how foolish or misguided.
clownfish
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
"-wow, name calling, thinly veiled obscenities? Being intolerant and hateful?"-Not from around here "60's refuse of ann arbor"-Not from around here. "elitist views" Not from around here. "Great to see Ann Arbors excuse for a newspaper publishing both sides of this issue."Not from Around Here. Romans 2:3 ESV / 105 helpful votes Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 1 John 4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. . Matthew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
Not from around here
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1 p.m.
wow, name calling, thinly veiled obscenities? Being intolerant and hateful? Guess someoen must be an Ann Arborite. I love it when zebras show there stripes (or spites).
GreenMan
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:48 p.m.
Noah, you remind me about why I enjoy Ann Arbor's educated population. It is so pleasant being around elites compared to ignorant xxx xxxxs.
Not from around here
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:23 p.m.
Hey, better yest, let just let the 60's refuse of ann arbor chart the path for the whole state. I've lived all of this great state, from S.S. Marie to Kalamazoo with stops in Iron mountant, ann arbor, Alpnea and Traverse City. The Rest of the state has spoken. Just ecause some of the resident of the far southeastern corner dosen't like it, doesn't mean the rest of us have to bend to your elitist views
walker101
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 11:53 a.m.
Michigan residents last voted on this issue, does it really matter what the majority votes for anymore? Go ahead change it might as well the people have spoken and it does no good what they majority want, not only as issues as such but anything that majority agree on it doesn't matter anymore. Just a waste.
Richard Carter
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 1:09 a.m.
Read the article: now the majority of people in Michigan DO support gay marriage.
sh1
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 3:06 p.m.
Would you feel the same way if the majority of people in the state supported gay marriage?
CLX
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1:11 p.m.
Our system of government was designed so that the majority cannot deny rights to the minority. It was the foundation of this country - certain rights cannot be denied just because the majority would have it so. If not, women and African Americans probably still wouldn't have the vote.
Ignatz
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 11:50 a.m.
I don't see how one group of people can deny another group their human rights. This same sex marriage should be equal to other marriages without getting the permission of a so-called majority.
Robert Hughes
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 11:55 a.m.
The group that wants same sex marriage legalized is the majority.
Usual Suspect
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 5:17 p.m.
It has nothing to do with human rights. it's something one group of people want.
Robert Granville
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1 p.m.
What do you mean you don't see how? This is America. Withholding basic human rights from a select group is like an American pasttime.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.
It seems to be less about denying people "their human rights" and more about denying them financial benefits.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 11:32 a.m.
What other constitutional amendments would you like to give voters a chance to change?
metrichead
Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 1:41 a.m.
Do away with term limits. Were I given the power to undo one law in this state, it'd be that. Most if not all the dysfunction in Lansing can be traced back to this.
amlive
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
Calling our State Constitution a 'constitution' is quite misleading if it leads you to think of it as in any way similar to our National Constitution. The way it's run here, it's more or less a catch all for any laws or regulations the voters want to pass directly while bypassing our congress, and far from any sacred or vetted set of fundamental principles. Are you suggesting that any sweeping regulation passed by a simple majority vote from a single ballot campaign at one point in time should be revered as infallible and untouchable? Of course not. If the people were swept up in a tide of stupid, there should be be nothing preventing them from going back to correct their errors.
The Infinite Jester
Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:48 p.m.
Isn't the point of the constitution that it can be flexible?