In states where anti-gay marriage amendments have passed...

[Not Me]

what has been the margin. 51%? 55%? 60%? More?

The reason I ask is that there will be a referendum in Florida in 2008 to change the constitution to write this discrimination into the FL constitution.

However, on this years ballot is a measure (which according to polls may pass) which will require a 60% vote to change the constitution. The rationale is that the legislature is lazy and the people of the state are free to use the constitutional amendment process like an initiative. If passed, this would make amending the constitution more difficult.

Also, if passed, it would make it harder for the anti-gay marriage crowd to get their way.

I personally think they wouldn't get 60% in FL in 2008. I many be wrong.

How have the numbers been in other states?

[Dr.Phool]

1. They tried to get it on the ballot this year.

They couldn't get enough signatures to get on the ballot.

I think a lot of people are getting fed-up with this religious right hate-mongering.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Don't support making it more difficult for ballot initiatives to pass...

...just because there is one you don't like.

Otherwise, whenever corporations don't want a ballot measure to pass, they'll be able to mislead/get-out-the-vote-for over 40% and stop a regulation from passing.

Corporate interest in making it more difficult for ballot measures to pass goes back to a ballot initiative in Florida which passed requiring corporate farming operations to treat pigs more decently.

[iamjoy]

4. Well, Pigs Don't Belong In The Constitution

I think that's a little ridiculous.

BUT - The problem is that Florida doesn't have a citizen's initiative process other than the state corporate interests. So, the only way we could get a living wage, breathe in restaurants and have universal Pre-K was though the state constitution. These are legislative issues that shouldn't be in the constitution. However, since there's no other way for citizens to be heard, we have no choice.

It is hard enough to get an amendment on the ballot. It requires 600,000 signatures or registered voters (from a certain number of counties). It must address a single issue. That's how they defeated the attempt to put legislative redistricting on the ballot - a misplaced comma made it two issues instead of one.

It angers me that they want to make it harder. Personally, I think this amendment should have a retroactive clause, in other words, if it passes it is retroactive to November 7, 2006. This means it would need at least 60% of voters to require 60% of voters.

[bornskeptic]

3. Wikipedia has a full list of past results.

It's about the middle of the page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

It looks like most of them were passed with over 60%, the exceptions being Oregon (57%) and Michigan (59%).

[Not Me]

5. Thanks

This is what I was looking for.
And btw, I believe that in the absence of a state legislature that actually does their job, there should be an initiative process. This process of amending the constitution to get legislation done sucks.
And also btw, I am hoping that in 2008, we will have evolved sufficiently here that the fundies can't garner 60%.