On Tuesday, November 5, Californians will vote on Proposition 3, a measure to establish the right to marry in the state constitution, by repealing the language of Proposition 8 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Although Prop 8 was struck down in 2010, its wording remains in California’s constitution. Prop 3 would not only remove Prop 8’s language, supporters said it would make marriage a fundamental right and provide protections for same-sex and interracial marriage.
Jorge Reyes Salinas, Communications Director at LGBTQ+ civil rights non-profit Equality California, said that Prop 3 comes at a critical time because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn established case law and protections.
“We faced the overturn of Roe v. Wade after its 50 years of precedent, which has been a huge wake-up call for the LGBTQ+ community,” he said. “We can no longer assume it’s safe to assume that this Supreme Court will uphold these precedents protecting marriage equality for same-sex couples, or even interracial couples.”
Opponents, such as the conservative non-profit California Family Council, describe Prop 3 as a threat to marriage. They said in the California Voter Guide they believe the proposition is too broad and could lead to unintended consequences, such as removing protections preventing “child marriages, incest and polygamy.”
CFC Vice President Greg Burt said that Prop 3 undermines California’s existing marriage laws. Burt said the state currently defines marriage as a union between two people and includes restrictions on age and familial relationships.
“When you’re voting for this, you’re not just voting to allow same-sex marriage,” Burt said. “You’re voting for anyone’s interpretation of what marriage is, not limited to numbers, ages or relations.”
RELATED: Sac State athletes discuss the importance of voting on Election Day
Burt said the potential for unintended consequences due to Prop 3’s broad language is central to the decision voters face. He said that the measure lacks clarity by failing to specify that marriage should be limited to two people.
“If the ultimate law of the land says that marriage is a fundamental right, what legal principle are you going to use to say no,” Burt said. “That’s the problem, there’s no limiting principle.”
Salinas said that the CFC’s warnings demonized people through misinformation.
“It’s just the same old tactic that far-right conservatives continue to spread,” Salinas said. “Proposition 3 is literally ensuring that every person, regardless of sexual orientation or race, have the freedom to marry.”
RELATED: California takes leap towards equal marriage
Sac State’s PRIDE Center Coordinator, Hei Fok, is prohibited from expressing his personal opinion on Prop 3 due to a California State University policy against employees endorsing partisan views in university publications, but he said that federal marriage equality is not guaranteed.
“Voting No on Prop. 3 means to leave the language as-is,” Fok said, “Which is currently regarded as a ‘Zombie law’ remaining on the books that could potentially resurface if the Supreme Court overturns same-sex marriage.”
Prop 3 has garnered support from dozens of political figures and organizations, including Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Democratic Party, the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign. Opponents include the California Family Council, Advocates for Faith & Freedom and the National Center for Law & Policy.
California voters will decide the fate of Prop 3 until polls close at 8 p.m. on Nov. 5.
