Rome Lobbies For Connecticut Constitutional Convention

A couple of weeks ago, I passed along word about a rally on Connecticut’s bidecadal ballot question on whether to convene a Constitutional Convention for the state.  

Some social conservatives have been conducting a whisper campaign to get support for a convention, with an eye towards introducing ballot initiatives to the state, or possibly even an anti-gay-marriage amendment to the state constitution.  The aforementioned rally was to drum up some opposition support.

Well, it seems that the ballot question is going to get a bit more attention, in the wake of the state Supreme Court’s ruling that civil unions aren’t an adequate proxy for gender-blind marriage laws.

Seen in the Courant:

The state Supreme Court’s historic ruling legalizing gay marriage Friday has prompted the state’s Roman Catholic bishops to call on Catholics to vote "yes" on a key ballot initiative Nov. 4.

The question of whether the state should hold a constitutional convention had been a low-key issue until the court’s ruling ignited opponents of gay marriage.

The question on the ballot next month — should the state hold a constitutional convention? — is simple. Proponents believe that a constitutional convention could lead to "direct initiative" in the form of a statewide referendum that could give all voters the chance to decide directly whether the state should ban gay marriage

I have to admit that I will be voting “yes” to the question.  I don’t want to see a same-gender marriage ban, and I’m not a fan of ballot initiatives; however, I think a revisiting of the law of the land is (in theory, at least) a healthy exercise.

I also wouldn’t mind seeing the Supreme Court’s ruling revisited in a legislative arena.  One of the dissenting justices’ opinions made a very good point on the matter – certain changes are best handled through the democratic or legislative process, rather than being decreed from the high court’s bench.

I think it is unlikely that an actual ban would emerge as a constitutional amendment in the state – folks here are generally too progressive – but I do think that public debate and a vote would be wise, even though that process will likely be heated and emotionally charged.