Personally, I’m a notorious creature of habit. Every Friday, I’m at the world-famous Smokey Joe’s Cigar Lounge in beautiful downtown Springfield. I have about a half-dozen cigars I like. I’m willing to explore new stogies, but I have to be nudged by Joe himself.

I will get several pairs of the same shoe and wear them until they can no longer be worn and then, I’ll buy the same brand and style, if I can.

At the Big E every year, I must have a corn dog followed by frozen banana. I’ll certainly try new things, but again I have my favorites.

Cargo pants: I love cargo pants and will wear them constantly if allowed.

If something works, I don’t like to mess with it, but if something doesn’t work I’m more than willing to accept change.

And if there’s one aspect of our existence on which we can depend, it’s the presence of change. Corn dogs and favorite cigars aside, change is an extremely necessary component of human life.

Revisions to how we think, how we do things and who we are  – all essential for the growth of our species.

This is why a news story from the State House New Service by Chris Lisinski caught my eye this week.

The Massachusetts Legislature is considering possible amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution that would be considered at a Constitutional Convention later this spring.

Lisinski noted the amendments proposed by state Rep. Mindy Domb. He wrote, “The first (H 79) would replace what Domb counted as 83 instances of the word ‘he’ in the Massachusetts constitution with the gender-neutral phrase ‘the person.’ That change, Domb told lawmakers, would make the document more inclusive to people of all gender identities and make its language more consistent – the word ‘person,’ she said, already appears 64 times.

“Domb’s second amendment (H 80) would allow lawmakers in Massachusetts to affirm their oaths of office rather than swearing them. Under the constitution as it stands, she said, only Quakers can affirm the oath of office, forcing everyone else to take an oath with religious connotations that might not mirror their faith or belief system.

“‘It doesn’t take God out of the constitution – trust me, I've looked at our constitution. There’s a lot of references that are in there,’ Domb said, noting that the U.S. Constitution allows members of Congress to swear or affirm their oath.’ This amendment would put us in line with not only the federal constitution, but providing any person who becomes a state legislator regardless of their religion with this option.’”

When I read the story, I thought, these little changes make sense as they reflect changes in our society, but I realize that some folks may not agree.

I’ve learned small changes can create as big a stir as truly major changes.

We live in a world in which many people wish to be precise with language and how they identify themselves. I certainly don’t see what’s wrong with that.

The last thing I want to do is offend someone by using a description that is offensive. A gender-neutral approach to the language in the constitution is a small but significant step forward.

Reporters get to ask questions and now one of the questions we ask is how to refer to a person in a story. I’ve asked my staff to ask people to make sure there is no offense.

Years ago, I worked at Wistariahurst, the grand museum in the home of the Skinner family in Holyoke. We had a fairly large collection of native artifacts and I was charged to create some updated exhibits of them. My boss asked a native woman she knew to act as a consultant.

In my first conversation, I asked what was her preferred way of describing herself. She didn’t want to be an “Indian” or “Native American,” but rather I should use the name of her tribe.

She was Lakota and she cautioned me against using the word “Sioux,” which she said was derogatory.

The result is we got along fine and I was able to create something which was acceptable.

I hope the Legislature consider these small changes as ways to more accurately reflect Massachusetts in the year 2021.