Back in 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, probably the shortest and least ambiguous ballot referendum in the state’s history. It simply added the following words to the State Constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”. That’s it. No legal jargon, no economic impact statement, no tax increases or bonds authorized, no commissions or board appointees.
The vote wasn’t a landslide, but it was more decisive than our upcoming Presidential election is likely to be: Prop 8 passed 52% to 48%.
This did not sit well with proponents of non-traditional marriage. Gavin Newsom, as mayor of San Francisco, directed city hall to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Since as mayor he took an oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States and California, this choice did not sit well and was shot down almost immediately in court.
Other states proceeded to enact similar laws. The result was a kind of full employment act for attorneys as cases were litigated nationwide. Finally the Supreme Court got involved and now couples of either sex or any of the 32 gender identities out there are free to wed and qualify for ‘married filing jointly’ status and spousal IRAs. And eligible for divorce, alimony and child custody battles. Be careful what you wish for.
So Prop 8 has been irrelevant for many years. But the language is still in the State constitution, and that seems to bother some people. The language cannot be removed from California’s constitution without passing a ballot initiative. Hence in 2024 we have Proposition 3. Here is the text:
Now I must admit that I was one of the 52% of the Neanderthals’ who voted for Prop 8 back in 2008. And I was kind of dismayed at the way courts and attorneys were able to undo it. But I really do not have a major objection to the ‘strike through’ part of Prop 3. It is the added language that has me a bit concerned.
“The right to marry is a fundamental right”. Is a ‘fundamental right’ limited to two consenting adults? Do a 35 year old man and a 14 year old girl have a ‘fundamental right’ to get married? How about a 40 year old man and a 16 year old boy? Or a 40 year old woman and a 15 year old boy? We are entering the Macron zone…
In California minors do not need parental consent to get gender affirming care or have an abortion, probably because those are deemed ‘fundamental rights’. Presumably this would apply to marriage as well. And as I pointed out in a previous blog, no one under 18 can legally get a tattoo in any of the 50 states. Apparently there is no ‘fundamental right’ to get yourself inked before you can vote.
And what about ‘throuples’? A throuple is a romantic relationship between three people who have all agreed to be in the relationship. I didn’t know that until very recently. Brumby Road really is a backwater at times. Do throuples have a ‘fundamental right’ to enter a state of matrimonial bliss? Or how about a foursome that wants to make a swinging swap permanent and official?
For that matter, how about polygamy? Stoker might think that one husband is more than enough at times, but maybe she would like to recruit a couple of younger studs as trophy husbands (or wives!) especially if they could do some yard work that is becoming hard for us Brumby Road oldsters.
Here is a proposition I could vote for: “Only marriage between two consenting adults is valid and recognized in the State of California”. But that is not what is on the ballot, so I’m going to vote no. Taxes are complicated enough without adding a “married filing throuple” status to Form 1040.
Fundamental right: IRS Regulations to follow
Rich Freggiaro Cycling Blog 