i can has process, plz?

[acroyear]

The real fundamental flaw in all of this Michigan and Virginia crap: it should not be possible for a constitution to be amended by a simple majority vote.

Better still would be that all constitutional amendments should be decided upon different days from any general election so as to not involve the politics of turnout for a particular candidate to influence it.  A constitution should be independent of all other politics, something decided upon because it matters, not because its convenient.  Amending a constitution should never be convenient; not for the proposers, not for the approvers.

So may it someday be, but only AFTER we've managed to undo this mess in the 12+ states that have this bullshit (including Virginia's which is even more restrictive than Michigan's).

Comments

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

I will call my state senators and reps tonight. Or tomorrow morning, during business hours.
The state government has NO business telling private, consenting, competent adult citizens whom they may or may not enter into private contracts with. The feds even less.
Unfortunately, with the Supreme Court we've got now, I'm not sure it would be overturned at the federal level, even though it seems clearly unconstitutional to me (esp. with the precedent of Loving vs. VA).
We need a champion. Someone who will stand up in the legislature, stubbornly and consistently, and propose bill after bill to overturn the treatment of one set of humans as less equal than another, until finally one passes and the voters approve. John Quincy Adams, where are you when we need you?

[3fingeredsalute.livejournal.com]

While he's not the right man for the job (any job, imho), please, please, PLEASE give Ralph Nader something to champion to keep him out of this next election business.

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

Maybe. But he's not in the VA legislature.

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

Besides, it's too conservative (in the true sense) an issue to make Nader a real advocate. Nader is all about "fighting the evil corporations". This is an issue where any corporations who are getting involved qua corporations are likely to be on the side of good - since it's an issue of government interfering with corporations' (and other institutions') right to offer benefits as they see fit.

Which brings me to another thought - all those churches that worry that they'll have to offer benefits to gay people if this is repealed really ought to be on our side, too. After all, if the government can tell some churches, who favor gay marriage, that they CANNOT offer benefits to gay employees, what's to stop a new administration to tell other churches that they MUST? If the government can restrict churches' rights to offer benefits as they see fit, surely they can do so in both directions, right? And if the majority changes...which it is doing, slowly but surely...