No. 18 created a new black market in the United States. No. 13 is widely heralded as saving an entire class of subjugated people. What could No. 28 do?

The numbers, of course, refer to constitutional amendments.

Eighteen was Prohibtion.

Thirteen made slavery illegal.

And there are only 27 amendments right now. But President Bush wants to change that — and his ideal No. 28 would go about “defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage,” according to Bush’s public statement on the issue.

A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress before it goes to the states — and three-quarters of states must ratify, or be asked to hold constitutional conventions.

The Equal Rights Amendment is the most recent public failure. It fell short of ratification by only three states (winning 35).

But do we really need to drag ourselves through the long, painful process of constitutional revision just to deny people the right to marry each other?

Rep. Chuck Gipp, Republican leader in the Iowa House, sums it up pretty well in his quote in an Associated Press article.

“There’s a number of people that are out there … in the Legislature, that have strong feelings and opinions on this. But as far as using the Constitution to express those feelings, I don’t think there’s as much support.”

Bush claims an amendment is needed to provide clarity in response to the confusion created by “activist judges,” in reference to the “most fundamental institution of civilization.”

Apparently it’s only “fundamental” to straight people, leaving out the other 10 percent of the human population.

Bush also says, “America’s a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage … There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.”

If we really wanted to respect every person and protect the institutions created to codify the love and commitment between people, perhaps we should discard with the so-called “gay marriage” amendment and take another look at the last potential number 28, the Equal Rights Amendment.