If voters in West Virginia could vote right now on whether the state's constitution should be changed to specifically ban same-sex marriage, it probably would be approved since it would require only a simple majority of those casting ballots.

A recent CBS-New York Times poll shows only one-third of the people in this country support the idea of marriage between two members of the same sex.

Supporters of a statewide referendum to amend the state constitution to specifically include this language, testifying at a legislative hearing in Charleston last week, insist polls in West Virginia show a majority of state residents would like the opportunity to vote on such an amendment.

But it takes a two-thirds majority of members in both houses of the Legislature to get this question on the ballot for the November 2010 general election. And that isn't going to happen.

Opponents of the idea point to an existing state law, enacted in 2001, that makes it clear in West Virginia law that any application for a marriage license must include the names of the "female and male parties" and a statement that marriage is intended to be "a loving and lifelong union between a woman and a man."

Admittedly such a law could be challenged in court and overturned as it was most recently in the middle-America state of Iowa. Advocates of the constitutional amendment insist this means such a legal challenge here is only a matter of time.

Nevertheless, the politics involved clearly indicate lawmakers have no intention of putting this issue on the ballot for a statewide vote.

First, it is a conservative Republican issue in a Legislature dominated by more liberal Democrats, even though four Democrats including Majority Leader Brent Boggs, D-Braxton, signed on to House Joint Resolution 5 -- one of the four nearly identical efforts introduced at the 2009 session.

HJR5, which died in the House Constitutional Revision Committee after an attempt on the floor to discharge that committee failed by a 2-1 margin, was an effort to insert language in the state constitution that "only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions."

Ironically, Delegate Barbara Fleishchauer, D-Monongalia, chairs the House Constitutional Revision Committee and her husband, WVU law professor Robert Bastress, was one of the speakers at last week's public hearing. He said with the exception of the 1912 vote on prohibition, none of the other 72 amendments to the state's constitution since 1872 have restricted or eliminated individual rights.

Most state legislators apparently agree with that distinction. During the 2009 legislative session, two versions of the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" were introduced in each chamber.

But each one was given a double committee assignment by the House Speaker and Senate President respectively and none of the four was ever placed on the agenda in any committee. In simple legislative jargon, all of them were "dead on arrival."

The outrageous numbers involved in future pension benefits continues to astonish many people. Consider these two figures from the most recent discussions about a plan to resolve the skyrocketing police and firefighters' pension program in Huntington and other major cities in the state.

Deputy Mayor Tom Bell said last week Huntington's latest half dozen retirees are each eligible for $1.5 million in pension benefits. These are people who earned less than $900,000 during their years of work.

No wonder the city is trying to avoid a future scenario where half the entire annual budget of $40 million would be needed just to cover their annual costs of keeping those pensions up to date.

A tentative solution being discussed would give Huntington a longer period of time to catch up at a rate of only $8 million or so per year. That's only 20 percent of the city's entire budget because the proposal would not affect the pensions of those working in the police and fire departments now.

Like the state Public Employees Insurance Agency executives, these cities have to cut the amounts for future employees to survive and already there's talk of yet another special legislative session later this year if an acceptable compromise plan can be hammered out.

It'll be a couple more weeks at least before this month's unemployment figures will be announced. But last month's figure of 9.4 percent -- the 10th straight month that this key economic indicator has increased -- suggests the 2009-2010 fiscal year could begin with a double-digit unemployment number.

If indeed the July unemployment rate does exceed 10 percent, it will be the first time it's been that high since March 1994, when the state's unemployment rate was 10.5 percent, concluding a run of three consecutive years when the jobless rate in West Virginia averaged more than 10 percent.

Tom Miller is a retired state government reporter for The Herald-Dispatch. He is a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch opinion page.

National Video