What does the redefinition of marriage mean for children and families in California?
On the ballot for all California voters this November is Prop 3: Constitutional Right to Marriage. This proposition seeks to both enshrine marriage as a constitutional right in the state of California as well as formally repeal Prop 8, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
It should be noted that in the state of California as of June 26, 2013 Prop 8 was effectively deemed null by the Supreme Court decision of Hollingsworth v. Perry, and furthermore, by the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Therefore, same-sex marriage has been and will remain legal in practice in the state of California, regardless of the passage of Prop 3.
According to CalMatters, the reason for the proposition is that California legislators fear that the right to marry could be stripped from same-sex couples by the Supreme Court. After the overturning of Roe and a comment from Justice Clarence Thomas that suggested the Court should also reconsider the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, legislators see this as a preemptive protection of what they believe to be a constitutional right.
Unfortunately, while unnecessary in its redundance, Prop 3 is also vague in a very dangerous manner. It seeks to simply add to the California Constitution that “the right to marry is a fundamental right.” The only clarification it adds is that this is based in the “inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety” as well as the “right to due process and equal protection.”
The chief concerns of this ballot measure are that it leaves for debate the vague definition of marriage which can lead to further questions and concerns regarding childrearing.
Leaving the word “marriage” entirely undefined leaves the door open for what California Family Council President Jonathan Keller calls a “Pandora’s Box.” The most extreme but relevant examples are that in this state there is every possibility that siblings or relatives could make the case for marriage under this new right. Even more concerning, marriage to inanimate objects or polyamorous marriage could also become a concern in the state again.
It is both unclear and concerning how the vague language of Proposition 3 could lead to a plethora of unintended consequences. Without clear parameters and definitions provided, it is unwise to change the California constitution itself. This Prop is wholly unnecessary and could in fact be permanently detrimental to how Californians understand the structure of the natural familial unit.
Related Posts
