Vote No on Prop 3

Vote No on Prop 3

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.  1 Timothy 1:8-11

Proposition 3 Isn’t For Protecting Gay Marriage

Proposition 3 (formerly Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5) will be on ballots this election.  It cleverly disguises itself as a “protect gay marriage” bill, but beware – it is not!

Gay marriage is already completely protected by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

What Prop 3 seeks to do is to enshrine ANYTHING as marriage.  No limits.  Multiple partners (wow will this mess with community property!); people who want to marry animals; child brides – ANYTHING.

Current Law

Via Proposition 8, California Constitution, Article I, section 7.5 currently states:

Prop 3 seeks to repeal Article I, section 7.5 and add this:

(a) The right to marry is a fundamental right.
(b) This section is in furtherance of both of the following:
(1) The inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy guaranteed by Section 1.
(2) The rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed by Section 7.

Prop 3 is the “Anything Goes” Marriage Bill

Note, Prop 3 has NO limits!  It just states: The right to marry is fundamental.

That’s it.

NOT the right to marry between humans.  Or adults.  Or how many people.   Just the right to marry.  Period.

You don’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to see the problem with this vague law.

This is an absolute reckless redefinition of marriage – turning a covenant into “anything goes” in our state constitution.

This would include plural marriages (polygamy), time-bound (temporary) marriages , marriages involving a minor or relative, or any other new marriage definition that anyone might choose to adopt.  Even animals!

Such loose recognition will undoubtedly open the floodgates to future “discrimination” laws and policies targeting people of faith who still adhere to God’s definition of marriage.

It Does Not Affirm Equality; It Wreaks Havoc on Vulnerable

While the intent behind this proposition might be to “affirm equality”, the implications of its vague and sweeping language are profoundly concerning for several reasons:

Lack of Clarity and Potential Overreach:

Proposition 3’s broad language could inadvertently redefine marriage in ways that extend far beyond the current societal consensus. By removing any specific definitions or limitations, it opens the door to interpretations that could legalize unions potentially detrimental to societal norms, such as polygamy or other forms of marriage that might not be in the best interest of child welfare or societal stability. This lack of clarity not only invites legal ambiguity but also risks undermining the very institution it aims to protect. If marriage can mean anything, then marriage actually means nothing.

Impact on Vulnerable Populations:

Proposition 3’s potential to redefine marriage without clear boundaries will inevitably fail to protect those who are most vulnerable: children. The stability of family structures, which has traditionally been a cornerstone of child development, could be compromised if marriage becomes a fluid concept without defined limits. This could lead to scenarios where children’s rights to a stable, predictable family life are diminished, potentially exposing them to environments that might not prioritize their best interests. Furthermore, without age restrictions, the proposition might be interpreted in ways that subject children to exploitative marriages. This is not a theoretical concern; in places where child marriage is legal, it often leads to exploitation, lack of education, and health risks for children.

Encroachment on Religious Freedom:

Proposition 3, by enshrining marriage as a fundamental right without qualifiers, will infringe upon religious freedoms. Religious institutions and individuals who hold that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman could find themselves at odds with the law.

This could lead to a scenario where those who still adhere to a traditional definition of marriage are penalized for not recognizing or performing marriages that conflict with their beliefs. Such a situation would not only punish people of faith, but also set a precedent that progressive ideology trumps religious freedom. This would chill religious expression and practice.

What is the Point of Marriage if it’s Not Carefully Defined?

Marriage is sacred because it is defined by God in Genesis 2:24:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

I previously wrote about God’s laws v man’s laws.  Read it.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 3

In conclusion, the vague wording of Proposition 3 poses risks that are too significant to ignore. It threatens to harm the most vulnerable, encroaches on fundamental religious freedoms, and seeks to redefine societal norms without adequate public discourse. We respectfully urge your “NO” vote on Proposition 3.

Prop 3 seeks to amend the California Constitution to say “The right to marry is a fundamental right.”

Effectve laws are usually written in the negative as proscription against doing wrong things: You must not murder. Or you must not drink and drive.

Or positive: providing… pic.twitter.com/1STD9dd0OO

— Lawyer Kelly (@lawyerkelly) October 18, 2024