California’s Proposition 3 Would Make Marriage a Fundamental Right in State Constitution

Assemblyman Evan Low (L) and state Sen. Scott Wiener speak at an Equality California event in Los Angeles on Sept. 28, 2019. (Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for Equality California)

An amendment to the California Constitution that would ensure marriage equality is heading to voters in November, and its proponents see it as removing the vestiges of a 2008 proposition that defined marriage as male-female.

ACA 5—introduced by Democratic Assemblyman Evan Low and state Sen. Scott Wiener—seeks to add marriage to the list of fundamental rights that are protected by the state Constitution.

The measure repeals the language of Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, and amends the Constitution to say simply, “The right to marry is a fundamental right.” It will be listed on the Nov. 5 ballot as Proposition 3.

“California has always been a leader in protecting civil rights and individual freedom. Proposition 3 continues that legacy,” Mr. Low told The Epoch Times in a statement July 9.

Since Proposition 8, the state Constitution has recognized only marriages between a man and a woman. However, a federal ruling blocked the measure’s enforcement, allowing same-sex marriage since 2013.

Two years later, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples nationwide had the right to marry, further rendering Prop. 8 irrelevant.

Mr. Low said this year’s amendment would provide additional protection for same-sex couples.

“Proposition 3 removes discriminatory language from the California Constitution and replaces it with a provision that establishes the right to marry as a fundamental right, enshrining protections for same-sex couples,” the lawmaker said.

But opponents said Prop. 3’s language is too vague and could lead to “unintended consequences.”

California Family Council, a nonprofit in Sacramento, raised concerns in a June 7 statement, arguing that the proposition lacks clear boundaries on age, genetic relationships, and the number of partners in a marriage, potentially threatening family stability and children’s well-being.

The group also said that such a change could pave the way for the legalization of relationships beyond same-sex marriage.

“We are deeply concerned about the implications of ACA 5 for families and children in California,” Council President Jonathan Keller said in the statement. “The absence of any clear definition of marriage is alarming and paves the way for the legalization of polygamy, child marriage, and incestuous relationships.”

California is one of only seven states in the nation with no minimum age for marriage.

Others cited religious reasons for opposing the amendment.

“ACA 5 threatens to create chaos in families and does not protect children. I oppose this amendment and stand for the biblical definition of marriage,” said Anne Edward, executive director of the religious coalition Restored Hope Network, during a late June press conference held by the California Family Council.

However, the bill’s author, Mr. Low, said the bill would not interfere with religious marriages.

“The proposition also respects the freedom of religion in California. It would not change the existing rights of clergy and religious denominations to refuse to perform a marriage,” he said in the statement.

The family council did not reply to a request for comment.