Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 22, 2004, to place before the voters in the August, 2004 primary election a Constitutional amendment to establish that "only the marriage of one man and one woman shall be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent by this state or its political subdivisions, excluding all other unions." The measure failed because it takes a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot (73 and 26 votes, respectively)

The vote was 65 in favor, 38 opposed and 6 not voting

(House Roll Call 93 at House Journal 19)

Click here to view bill details.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? Marriage is between one man and one woman only.No other definition is true. Attempting to change the definition doesn't change the truth.

When did marriage go from a social/religious custom, into something that is now directly within the scope of the government?

The good representative should concentrate on more pressing matters to the State of Michigan, such as his inability to budget properly, rather than to stick his nose into areas that are clearly beyond the purview of the state government.

This is another bill that should die in committee.

It never ceases to amaze me when an activist reverts to the argument of keeping government out of the bedroom...while they activity lobby congress for laws protecting homosexual "rights." This one sided tolerance is causing a great deal of problems in this country. Marriage is the foundation of a healthy society. For thousands of years it has been defined as a union between a man and woman. We are wise to preserve it as such.

Who is forcefully compelling you to recognize something that you do not feel falls with what you would considerer a "marriage"?

This bill should pass. Those same sex couples that wish to cohabit already have terms for their own lifestyle-such as "civil unions" etc. If they have a problem with benefits wordings etc. then submit a request to employers and government to add the partner of an employees civil union to be recognized etc.

This bill is about defining marriage and should pass.

...what other institutions should the state have a hand in "defining"?

Above the comments is an explanation of what the amendment is about. It says that marriage, or the legal equivalent thereof, will only be for one man and one woman. The legal equivalent would be "civil union" which homosexuals will not be able to have under this admendment. This amendment takes away their right to have any kind of legally recognized union, no matter what you call it. The employers won't have to recognize it, because the law will tell them not to. Oh, and why is it you are for writing a personal issue such as marriage into the Constitution? Or discrimination for that matter?

With the same rights for those as for married couples? Somehow, I doubt you would be. Also, the amendment would prohibit such a thing, and you are supportive of the amendment. It's amazing how people don't like it when they feel others are trying to take their rights away, but they don't see the hypocrisy of the situation when they themselves are the ones trying to take away someone's rights.

I will vote against any lawmaker that supports this amendment, solely based on this issue. After all, what is to stop you from taking away some of my rights after you're done going after the taxpaying, law-abiding, homosexual citizens of this country?

Yes, it's so important that we preserve the sanctity of it. Just as Britney Spears about her sacred marriage. Instead of letting people be married who want to be married, we close them out while we let drunk people get married at 5am in Vegas and have it annulled in 72 hours.

Well,It's good to see people know how to activate, even if they don't represent most peoples thinking. One man one woman equal marriage is thinking based on generations of what is best for society and its children. I put this website on the detnews.com cyberforum for people to express their views.

I didn't realize that we we're operating under mob rule?

It doesn't mean it is right. Generations of people held others in slavery and a majority of them felt that was okay, too. I don't see where legalized, written-into-the-Supreme-Law of the land discrimination and hatred does any society or its children good. How is this good for a teenager who is realizing he/she might be gay to look and see you and others actively and openly hating them, and going out of your way to make our laws reflect that? And yes, thanks for posting this on the detnews site, it's where I found it. I believe it was on the same page where you were lamenting the encroachment of the government in our lives and how our rights are being taken away. So, as long as it's not your rights being taken away, it's okay?

that "even if they don't represent most peoples thinking."

MOST people in 2000 did NOT vote for George W. Bush.

MOST people in the South before 1860 thought slavery was moral.

MOST people don't care enough to vote in most elections.

MOST people's marraiges didn't require government definitions of their union for more than 2000 years.

It concerns me how the discrimination card can be readily charged against a landlord or employer, or even a potential landlord or employer. It concerns me when I learn of legislation in districts requiring an employer to provide spousal benefits to "domestic" partners.

It is a sad commentary on our society when the word "marriage" requires a definition by our legislators. But then again, it is longer that "alone", "is" or with regards to Wesley Clark, "the".

I will absolutely vote yes on this amendment. There are few things more basic to this society than that marriage (or any of it's equivalents) is only between a man and a women. If people should be allowed to marry anyone or anything that they want to, we will see activists advocating the "rights" of people to marry a cabbage or their pet because they love it!

Everybody knows you don't marry a cabbage. You take it out for drinks, maybe a movie, but NEVER marry it.

Is that like "Date Cabbage, Marry Republican"?

Gay marriage is the only free and equal thing to allow. A civil union is separate and not equal. It is sad that we as Americans are still discriminating against ourselves. Truly sad.

It's also so sad that we discriminate against pedofiles, zoofiles and necrofiles.

J

Rep. Wenke, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify my position on the proposed marriage protection amendment. I wish to thank The Kalamazoo Gazette and Julie Mack for a two-hour interview that resulted in an accurate and honest report. Other individuals who have made no attempt to speak with me have misrepresented my stance. For more than 30 years I have been a husband and father and a business owner. I have spent eight years as a Kalamazoo county commissioner and have completed one year as a state representative. None of these experiences, either singularly or collectively, has received as much examination as my position on the marriage protection amendment. I do not support gay marriage. I do not endorse using the word marriage to define a relationship between members of the same sex. I do, however, support the creation and recognition of a legal arrangement between same sex couples. I am not alone in my conclusion as Governor Granholm and about half of all Americans favor civil unions for homosexuals. I cannot support the marriage protection amendment because the clear intent of this amendment is to discriminate against a specific segment of our population ­ that being gay men and women. This amendment will prevent same sex couples from forming a legal union and therefore deny them the same benefits granted to their heterosexual counterparts. I will not vote to discriminate against any group of citizens. The Constitution of Michigan should not be amended for the purpose of limiting access to equal rights. Proponents of this amendment sincerely believe they are protecting marriage from its current rapid decline as an integral element of our society. I respect their position. It has never been my intention to antagonize or preach to others on this issue. In fact, my focus in the legislature, as Chair of the House Tax Policy Committee, has been equitable taxation, employment and the economy. My position on this amendment, while unpopular with some, is a matter of conscience, research and a thorough examination of issues regarding homosexuality. I have also gleaned much information from acquaintances and friends who are gay ­ including my best childhood friend. Many families have homosexual members ­ most extended families do. Are we to believe these family members are less valued? Do they pose a threat to the family institution? I believe that homosexuality is a state that generally we do not choose, but with which we are born. Same sex attraction is based in human biology. This is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the Christian Reformed Church in which I was raised. We do not choose our sexual preference when we attain the age of puberty. I ask, 'Why would anyone choose to be gay when, in our society, that choice usually brings great heartache to the individual and his or her family?' People who have a religiously based position against homosexuality will have a difficult time acknowledging gay men and women as deserving of equal rights. The Constitution is not the place to implement discrimination against those with whom we have a religious difference. With good reason, our country has embraced the concept of separation of church and state. I will not remove a single brick from the wall that separates the church from the state. As a state representative, I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the State of Michigan. That oath requires me to protect the rights of all citizens, including homosexuals. I believe homosexual partners are entitled to health benefits, social security benefits, and the protections afforded by estate planning. Amending the Constitution for the purpose of excluding specific groups of individuals is unacceptable. Prominent conservatives, including George Will, oppose gay marriage but still do not support amending the Constitution to deal with this issue. The Constitution should advance, preserve and protect the rights we cherish and not be used an instrument to withhold rights. I represent all the citizens of my district including homosexuals, and it is my responsibility to ensure justice and equality for all. I cannot walk out of the Capitol Building ­ where the American flag, a symbol of American freedom and justice waves overhead ­ having voted for an amendment that is clearly discriminatory."

Rep. Accavitti, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I believe this to be simply another conservative wedge issue. No reasonable legislator would believe that changing the state constitution will have any more effect than Michigan's current laws banning same sex marriages. Our state Constitution is supposed to provide protections for individual's rights against the potential tyrannies of the majority. The definition of marriage amendment would be a wholly different type of amendment - it would block certain people's access to rights generally granted to others. Is this truly the sort of face Michigan wants to show to the world, equality for some and not others?"

Rep. Drolet, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Back in junior high school we used to play a game at recess called 'smear the queer'. The game didn't have any real rules but went like this; an unpopular boy would be targeted by a group of other boys and labeled 'queer'. The group of boys would then chase down and surround the victim, ending the game by piling on top of the targeted boy. Rarely was any real harm done physically, but some children feared recess because of the game, and other boys felt they had to play in order to avoid being targeted as 'queer '. I am ashamed to say that I sometimes joined in the game. But then I grew up, and I forgot about the game. What reminded me of the game was the Committee on Family and Children Services hearing held two weeks ago on the resolution before us now. This resolution, if adopted and voted into the Constitution, would have longstanding and significant impact on the lives of many gay and lesbian citizens in Michigan. One might expect that a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with human rights would be carefully evaluated by lawmakers who would also solicit testimony from the citizens of this state. Sadly, that was not the case at the committee hearing. The committee allowed only 40 minutes of public testimony. The great majority of citizens who drove to Lansing from throughout Michigan were not permitted to speak. Regardless of your position on the resolution before us, what happened in that committee hearing was demeaning and dismissive to the citizens of the state of Michigan. What role should government play in marriage? Certainly not to regulate or enforce any person's relationship with God. Our country's first immigrants came to these shores to escape governments that regulated their relationship with God. Nor can the government regulate or enforce the personal and private emotions, thoughts and intimate actions between two people. Marriage is primarily a contract between two people and, if they choose, God. Society, as in neighbors, friends and family, may choose to accept two people's relationship or reject it as morally invalid regardless of any decree from politicians or bureaucrats. The only role for government, if it is to be in the marriage business at all, is to enforce and regulate the contract of marriage in its' civil capacity. The crux of the amendment before us is to prohibit the state from recognizing a voluntary contract made between two adults. Why would we single out some people for unequal contracting rights? Proponents claim that homosexual people need to be singled out for unequal contracting rights in order to protect the institution of marriage. Let me see if I have this right: Forty years of skyrocketing divorce rates and nobody proposes a constitutional amendment to deal with divorce. Thirty years of recognizing 'common-law' marriages and nobody proposes a constitutional amendment to deal with people who 'shack-up'. The USA Today reported just this past Friday that out-of-wedlock births have tripled over the past 30 years; but no one has proposed we amend the constitution to prohibit premarital sex. Decreasing stigmatization of infidelity, yet no constitutional amendment. In 1994, Bill Bennett said the following to the Christian Coalition, 'In terms of damage to the children of America, you cannot compare what the homosexual movement has done to what divorce has done. It is not even close.' But for some reason, gay marriage is such a threat that an amendment to the constitution is required. You know what I think? We have found a minority that can be made into a scapegoat so that we don't have to seriously address the detrimental actions of the majority. 'It's not the log in OUR eye, but the splinter in THEIRS! It's not OUR fault that marriage is a troubled institution, it is other people's fault!' That is how this amendment can be interpreted. The heterosexual majority would never propose to use government force to prohibit divorce, infidelity or 'shacking-up' because those are things that many heterosexual people choose to do. But loving and committing to someone of the same sex is something that only a small minority chooses to do. So it is easy to blame them. We are back on the playground still playing 'smear the queer.' Allow me to make my position on human rights very clear: I support equal constitutional and legal rights for each and every individual Michigan citizen. I do NOT support group rights, special rights based on any factor, race or gender preferences, or special protections such as 'hate crime' laws. Every citizen deserves true equal protection under the law. Americans have fought too long and too hard to eliminate constitutionally mandated discrimination against ethic groups, women, and other minorities. Already, polls show younger Americans are much more prone to support equal treatment under the law for homosexuals than older Americans. These young Americans, and history, will not judge this constitutional amendment well. I ran for the state legislature because I believe that the size, scope and cost of government should be reduced. It is not the proper role of government to interfere with peoples' relationships, nor to discourage or encourage love or commitments between consenting adults who harm no one. This amendment is designed to demonstrate governmental disapproval of some peoples' relationships and will do nothing to protect or strengthen the marriages of heterosexual people. Of course, initiatives like this amendment aren't new. Efforts to single out gays and lesbians for unequal treatment have been proposed and often adopted many times in the last 30 years. Back in 1978, a conservative state senator in California named John Briggs began an initiative to prohibit homosexuals from holding jobs as teachers. Now, I grant that this was California, but remember it was also 1978 and early polls showed 2 ­ 1 support for the Briggs Initiative. But something unexpected happened in August of that year, as the initiative headed toward a vote. The Governor of California wrote a newspaper editorial opposing the Briggs Initiative on the grounds that it singled out a group of people for unequal treatment under the law. The Governor wrote that the initiative had, 'the potential of infringing on basic rights of privacy and perhaps even constitutional rights.' Who was that 'activist' governor? Was it Governor Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown? No, that governor was named Ronald Reagan. Governor Reagan's opposition to the Briggs Initiative is credited with turning the tide and when the final votes were cast, the Briggs Initiative was defeated. Writer Jonathan Rauch wrote in The New York Times that 'Mr. Reagan single-handedly turned the tide against the measure.' For Reagan, on the cusp of launching his bid for President of the United States and asking for Republican delegate votes in Alabama and Mississippi, opposing the Briggs Initiative was a breathtakingly courageous act of principle. I will always admire and be inspired by Ronald Reagan's unswerving commitment to principle; whether standing up to an evil Soviet Empire, or standing against antigay ballot initiatives. We don't know where Ronald Reagan, if he had all of his faculties, would stand on the resolution before us today. He may well have been in support. But before you assert that he would be, listen to what best-selling conservative author Dinesh D'Souza writes in his biography of Reagan, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader, a biography highly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and P.J. O'Roarke. D'Souza writes, "Reagan's views on homosexuality were not entirely compatible with those of his evangelical Christian supporters or with those of the gay rights community. Before he became President, he once confessed his belief that homosexuality is a 'tragic illness'...Yet, as we might expect, Reagan knew lots of gays in Hollywood, and he and his wife socialized with people who were avowedly homosexual. Reagan did not support state-sponsored discrimination against homosexuals as a group." Reagan Biographer Lou Cannon, who covered Reagan as a reporter for the Washington Post and San Jose News for 36 years wrote in his book Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power about Reagan's views on gay issues. Cannon, when referring to later accounts of gay couples, friends of Nancy's that would spend the night with their partners at the White House, wrote, 'The sentiment about Reagan's tolerance is accurate ­ Reagan would a decade later play a pivotal and courageous role in defeating a ballot initiative that discriminated against homosexual teachers.' Again, I stress that I have no idea what President Reagan would do or say about this resolution before us today, if he could be here with us. But I do know that the number of well-known and highly regarded conservatives who oppose both state and federal constitutional amendments to define marriage is growing rapidly. Those already on the record opposing such amendments include: George Will, William Safire, former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, Lyn Nofzinger who was President Reagan' press secretary, commentator Andrew Sullivan, David Horowitz, Republican Rep. Bob Simmons, and a growing number of elected Republicans and conservative writer and talk show hosts. My friends, today, before us we have an important choice. We can vote with the courage of our convictions, or we can vote out of fear. I urge my colleagues to reject scapegoating, political expediency, and hypocrisy. Please stand up for equal protection under the law and for human equality by voting 'No' on this proposed amendment. And may the venomous serpent of discrimination and unequal treatment of people never again slither through the doors of this chamber. Thank you."

Rep. Tobocman, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted against this resolution because I believe it offends and discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation. Current Michigan law recognizes marriages only between a man and a woman. Because of that law, an amendment to the Michigan Constitution is completely unnecessary. I no of no other part of the Michigan Constitution that singles out a distinct group of people to insure that they are not afforded certain rights or liberties. The State Consitution is no place to voice our religious or social differences. Even within the last half-century, the United States has witnessed a significant number of its citizens who voiced opposition to certain marriages that some believed threated the institution of marriage. These critics argues that certain marriages were an offense to the Bible and nature. In the 1950s and early 1960s, these critics were speaking of intermarriage or marriage between persons of distinct races. I find the arguments voiced today against two members of the same sex making a loving commitment to each other to be somewhat parallel to that unfortunate chapter in our history. The clear intent of today's resolution is to discriminate against persons based upon their sexual orientation. Every day in the House we have a moment of silence to honor those who defend our freedoms. Everyday in the House we take a pledge of allegiance to our nation's flag and to our republic because at their foundation are 'liberty and justice for all.' This resolution is an abomination to personal liberties and the freedom of choice. For these reasons, I vote against the resolution."

Rep. Meisner, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: There were many reasons for my voting against HJR U, including the fact that same sex marriage is already banned at both the state and federal levels. What's more, our state constitution is a vehicle for protecting the rights of Michigan citizens, not taking them away. I regret that the time used by the house to debate this issue was not used to address an issue of greater concern to the people of the 27th District and Michigan -- namely the tragic outsourcing of American jobs overseas."

Reps. Gillard and Elkins, having reserved the right to explain their nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: The state Constitution is supposed to provide protections for individual's rights against potential tyrannies of the majority. The definition of marriage amendment would be a wholly different type of amendment ­ it would block certain people's access to rights generally granted to others. Is this truly the sort of face Michigan wants to show to the world, equality for some and not others? This is simply another conservative wedge issue. No reasonable legislator would believe that changing the state constitution will have any more effect than Michigan's current laws banning same sex marriages. On questions of the government's authority to interfere in people's lives, the Supreme Court of the United States' word is final (but, admittedly not unchanging). If the Supreme Court says that such laws are valid, then our law will stand (regardless of what our constitution says on the matter) and, if the Supreme Court says that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, then our law will be overturned (regardless of what our Constitution says on the matter)."

Rep. Zelenko, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on HJR U because Michigan's law already forbids same sex marriage! I believe that regardless of what our State Constitution says on the matter, it will be no more valid than the existing state law if the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. The State Constitution plays second fiddle to the U.S. Constitution on matters of individual rights. In addition, I believe to add such language to our constitution violates civil rights. To waste legislative time and effort solely to give false hope to certain groups that truly and passionately believe that homosexuality is a sin, is wrong. This is simply another ultra-conservative wedge issue presenting another way for the religious right of the Republican Party to try to claim a higher moral ground by trying to make a change that they know will have no more impact than our existing laws. This is part of the National and State Republican Party's strategy to take focus off the economic mess and job hemorrhaging we are suffering in this country and particularly in Michigan. It is a monumental and divisive waste of time Our focus needs to be on creating and keeping good paying jobs, balancing the State's budget, fixing the structural problems in our budget and growing Michigan's economy by getting people back to work!"

Rep. Vagnozzi, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: The state Constitution is supposed to provide protections for individual's rights against potential tyrannies of the majority. The definition of marriage amendment would be a wholly different type of amendment: it would block certain people's access to rights generally granted to others. Is this truly the sort of face Michigan wants to show to the world, equality for some and not others? I believe that denying fairness and justice to some of us is denying fairness and justice to all of us."

Rep. Adamini, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: The state Constitution is intended to provide protections for our citizens' rights against potential tyrannies of the majority. The definition of marriage amendment would be a wholly different type of amendment - without precedent, it would deliberately block certain people's access to rights generally granted to all others. Is this truly the face that Michigan wants to show the world, equality for some but not others? This is simply a solution in search of a problem. Michigan currently has a statute banning gay marriages. A Federal statute contains the same. No reasonable legislator would believe that changing the state constitution will have any more effect than these current laws. The United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter on questions of the government's authority to interfere in people's lives. If the Supreme Court says that these laws (or similar laws of other states) are valid, then our law is valid, regardless of what our state Constitution says. If the Supreme Court says these laws are unconstitutional, then our law will be invalid (regardless of what our state Constitution says on the matter)."

Rep. Anderson, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on this resolution because I believe the Michigan constitution should not be used to discriminate against Michigan's citizens. While I don't support gay marriage, I do believe constitutional protections should be provided to all our citizens. I also recognise that on occasions we must realize that ones personal beliefs and our constitutional responsibilities as leaders are different. I recognize that many citizens support this amendment because they have religious objections to homosexuality, but this is one example of the value of the separation of church and state. This amendment is not only discriminatory, but is unnecessary, since it is Michigan law already. When I was sworn in as state representative, I took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of this great state. I believe this oath included the reponsibility to protect the rights of all Michigan citizens, not just those I agree with, but ALL Michigan citizens. I also believe this legislative body has a responsibility to take action on the many other pressing issues of our time, such as job creation and retention, providing greater access to health care, and improving the quality of education for our children. Instead we have before us a constitutional amendment resolution to create a campaign issue to distract voters from the real problems we face and would further divide our citizens. I feel in my heart that no matter how difficult this vote was politically, it was the right vote to cast."

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Recently, I had the opportunity to read to students of one of the many elementary schools in the district that I represent. The story that I read - one I'm sure my colleagues will remember from their own childhood - was the story of 'Chicken Little.' You may remember Chicken Little. It is the story of a little chicken, who, while walking through the woods, is hit by a falling acorn. Chicken Little quickly reaches the frenzied conclusion that the sky is falling, and in the process creates mass hysteria. The moral of the story is don't get caught up in mob psychology. How appropriate this simple childhood story is today. On the issue of amending the state constitution, no reasonable legislator would believe that taking the extraordinary action in changing the state constitution will have any more effect than Michigan's current laws defining marriage. This is simply a diversionary tactic - but one that engenders a great deal of emotion, and looks more like a politically motivated attack on a segment of our population that is an easy target for prejudice and hatred. Certainly, I strongly believe that marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. Marriage encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society. But today's action is unnecessary, indeed reactionary. The Michigan Constitution sets forth the broad parameters of state government. It protects rights. There are strong laws on the books that define marriage. To waste legislative time and effort solely to give false hope to certain groups that truly and passionately believe that homosexuality is a sin, is wrong. Indeed, it is very dishonest. It is not a serious commitment to finding ways to strengthen marriage in this state. Regardless of what our constitution says on the matter, this proposed amendment will be no more valid than the existing state law if the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. We have serious problems in this state: high unemployment, a stagnant economy, huge budget shortfalls, and serious cuts in essential state services. Does anyone realize how much these problems impact marriage and family?"

Rep. Law, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted NO on HJR U. I support marriage between a man and a woman. I support equal protection under the law for all the people of Michigan. Marriage has both civil and religious significance. In America we impose specific legal requirements for marriage but also allow the marriage to be certified by religious authorities. We also allow civil unions with no religious affiliation. In other countries, such as Italy, separate religious and civil ceremonies exist, however. neither of the Italian intuitions recognizes the validity of the other. To amend the Michigan Constitution for changing social mores is excessive. It was not that many years ago that marriage between Blacks and Whites was illegal. Times change, society matures and our culture reflects those changes. The Constitution of the State is the legal framework for the protection of the rights of Michigan and is unwisely amended to suit a social agenda."

Rep. Waters, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: The Michigan Constitution has a noble history of providing for protections of the rights of individuals against potential 'tyrannies of the majority.' But House Joint Resolution U would be a wholly different type of amendment - its language would affirmatively block certain people's access to rights generally granted to others. I think it is simply wrong to provide for discrimination in the Constitution. And in any case, both Michigan law and federal law already define marriage as between one man and one woman. Furthermore, it is wrong for the Legislature to use this issue in the way it is now doing. It is taking an issue of tremendous importance to people's lives and using it for purposes of political gamesmanship. The Legislature has great and important tasks before us. We should be spending our time and the Legislature's precious resources to ensure that Michigan residents have jobs and health care. But instead, this body is entertaining television cameras with the apparent hope of pulling a political bait-and-switch on the public."

Rep. Brown, having reserved the right to explain his protest nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Michigan currently has a statute which bans gay marriages. A Federal statute contains the same. No reasonable legislator would believe that changing the state constitution will have any more effect than current laws. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter on questions of the government's authority to interfere in peoples's lives. If the Supreme Court says that these laws (or similar laws in other states) are valid, then our law is valid, regardless of what the State Constitution says. If the Supreme Court says these laws are unconstitutional, then our law will be invalid (regardless of what our State Constitution says on the matter."

Gee, if civil unions come into play...does this mean I could marry my brother or sister too simply because I want to ?? How about my dog? Give me a break. It also opens the field to more fraud (like welfare) just to get benefits.
In this country majority rules, right? Well, if the polls can be believed that means the majority doesn't want to see same-sex marriages. That should be the end of discussion. All the whining about minority rights is nonsense in this issue. If I wanted to, I could say I was discriminated against because I have dark hair and someone obviously prefers blondes where I work. I could say the majority of the workers here are blond. Oh goodness...how terrible for poor me. I know what I'll do. I'll complain to my representative. Wait...he just voted no on this bill without an explanation. Time to get him out of office. Perhaps I'll run against him!

Changing the definition of marriage may have very negative ramifications into the next generations... for example, will a mother considering adopting her baby out have any say over whether that child is raised in a male-female marriage - or will it be illegal for the adoption agency to even specify whether the new family is same gender....

We need to take our time with this issue and in the meantime protect this from being changed by one judge's personal definition.

I'm new to this site, and I've noticed that the vast majority of "negative" comments come from "anonymous" sources. Why anonymous? If you feel strongly, why not be proud of that? Why hide behind "anonymous"?

Just curious!

...the issue may have to do more with a quirk on this website than anything else.

I've had a number of my postings list me as "anon" when I have logged in not more than a few seconds earlier.

Sometimes it will list me properly, sometimes it won't.

Go to advanced search, “View bill or resolution by number,” use the drop down menu next to the default “House Bill,” and select "House Joint Resolution" or "Senate Joint Resolution." Or, enter keywords into the basic search above, such as death penalty or marriage amendment. An upgrade to this site making this simpler is coming shortly.
MichiganVotes.org Editor