This is the first in a series of recommendations on state propositions for the Nov. 5 ballot.
Of 10 state ballot measures voters will encounter this November, only one does not require a detailed financial analysis, much less is it another tax proposal or a huge bond measure.
Proposition 3, The Right to Marry and Repeal Amendment, is really quite simple and easy to understand.
Namely, that no one, regardless of sexual orientation, should be deprived of the ability to marry the person they love.
That might seem like a fundamental and bedrock idea, but for California and the nation, it’s relatively new. And, unfortunately, there is no assurance the U.S. Supreme Court will remain on board.
So, why is this even on the ballot? Go back to just 24 years ago when 62% of state voters approved Proposition 22, which affirmed in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman would be valid or recognized in California.
That was upended in May 2008 when the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had a fundamental right under the state Constitution to marry.
But then later that year, 52% of California voters supported an initiative, Proposition 8, that added a ban on same-sex marriage to the state Constitution.
That was overturned with U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2013 and 2015 that cleared the way for gay marriage in California and established a federal constitutional right nationwide.
But, that might not be the final word. The narrow 5-4 ruling in 2015 could be in danger with the conservative shift of the high court. Of the five justices in the majority nine years ago, only two, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, remain on the court.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., considered one of the moderate members of the court, dissented in the 2015 ruling. And in the court’s 2022 ruling overturning constitutional protections for abortion rights, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion arguing that gay rights should also be subject to state-by-state review.
Bottom line: there’s no guarantee that gay-marriage protections would survive review of the current U.S. Supreme Court any more than abortion rights did. Once again, a key issue of personal liberty could be relegated to each state to decide. Making matters worse, right now in California the 2008 wording of Proposition 8, even though struck down by the courts, remains in the state Constitution.
Proposition 3 would fix that, repealing Proposition 8 and recognizing the fundamental right to marry, regardless of race or sex.
Proposition 3 would ensure California’s Constitution keeps up with changing public sentiment. Polling shows that in 1996, 68% of Americans believed that gay marriage should not be legalized. People recall Democratic President Bill Clinton as pretty liberal on social issues. And yet it was Clinton who in 1996 signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
In 2000, 38% of likely voters surveyed by the Public Policy Institute of California said they supported gay marriage. By last year that support had doubled to 75%.
Today, 87% of Democrats say same-sex marriage should be legal, as do 72% of independents and, as of recently, for the first time, a majority of Republicans — 55%.
It’s hard to think of any public policy — and ethical, and moral — issue about which public opinion has changed so drastically in such a short period of time than gay marriage.
So it’s a complete reversal, and then some, of attitudes about a legal and often religious precept that had been commonplace for thousands of years. It’s amazing how quickly public attitudes have changed since the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Gay marriage is now common, across the land. Californians should inoculate the state against a federal reversal of same-sex marriage rights by passing Proposition 3.
Our Bay Area News Group contributed to this editorial.