The Question

Should the California Constitution be amended to define marriage as a fundamental right for all regardless of sex or race and remove language that states that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

The Situation 

The California Constitution contains an outdated and unenforceable provision stating “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The language was inserted as a result of the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008.  After federal court decisions holding that the provision was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, California has recognized same-sex marriage. In 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court held that states must allow and recognize same-sex marriage.  

The Proposal

Prop 3  would repeal the outdated language and amend the state Constitution to provide that the right to marry is a fundamental right, and this fundamental right is in furtherance of the rights to enjoy life, liberty, safety, happiness and privacy, and the rights to due process and equal protection.  These amendments would protect both same-sex and interracial marriages.

The legislature placed this measure on the ballot to bring the California Constitution in line with existing law that gives same-sex couples the right to marry, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges and the federal Respect for Marriage Act. By placing the freedom to marry in the California Constitution, the state would provide protections in the event that there is a rollback on protections currently afforded at the federal level.

Fiscal Effects

No changes in revenues or costs are estimated for state or local governments.

Supporters Say

• Prop 3 proactively protects against future attempts to restrict marriage rights for same-sex or interracial couples. 
• The amendment aligns the state Constitution with the law as it is today and reaffirms the freedom to marry as a fundamental right. 
• The amendment does not change any laws regarding age requirements, the number of people in a marriage, or existing rights of clergy to refuse to perform a marriage.

Opponents Say

• Because same-sex marriage is already legal, the amendment fixes a problem that does not exist.  
• The amendment’s language is unclear and eliminates all rules for marriage. 
• Without safeguards such as age, genetic relationship and the number of participants, the amendment opens the door to child marriage, incest and polygamy.

For More Information