Update: Voters in 3 states affirm support for legalization of same-sex marriage
Measures would allow such nuptials even if Obergefell decision were reversed
Three states approved measures Tuesday to protect the right to same-sex marriage.
The three measures, presented to voters by state legislatures, were designed to retain the legality of same-sex marriage even if a future Supreme Court were to reverse the 2015 decision that declared same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional.
All three measures were approved by large but not overwhelming margins. Incomplete returns showed:
California approved Measure 3 with 61 percent of the vote.
Colorado approved Measure J with 64 percent of the vote.
Hawaii approved Amendment 1 with 56 percent of the vote.
Original article: Same-sex marriage on the ballot in three states, but evangelicals are mostly silent
Twenty or so years ago, the biggest political fights waged by politically conservative Christians — primarily evangelicals but also Latter-day Saints and Catholics — were over gay rights: In fact, in 2006 and 2008, such Christians successfully campaigned in more than 20 states to keep same-sex marriage from becoming a reality.
Those days are long gone. The U.S. Supreme Court in the 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges ruled that laws preventing same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, and such marriages have become generally accepted in the culture. And while nearly all evangelical churches and denominations continue to oppose same-sex marriage as a moral matter, their willingness to do anything political about it has nearly disappeared. And that is evident in the current election cycle, as evangelicals are all but silent as state constitutional amendments to affirm the validity of same-sex marriage in three states have received essentially no organized opposition.
Those states are California, Colorado and Hawaii. In all of those states, state constitutional provisions outlawing same-sex marriage are on the books but are unenforceable because of Obergefell. The proposed amendments would eliminate the conflict between the state constitutions and the ruling:
California’s Proposition 3 would repeal 2008’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage in the state Constitution as being between a man and a woman. It would also add a provision calling the right to marriage a “fundamental” right in furtherance of the “rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy” and the “rights to due process and equal protection.”
Colorado’s Amendment J would remove a provision in the state Constitution providing that “[o]nly a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage.”
The Hawaii Remove Legislature Authority to Limit Marriage to Opposite-Sex Couples Amendment would do exactly what its title says: It would remove the current provision that the “the legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
All three of the measures were placed on the ballots by the respective state legislatures. Legislative votes in all cases were overwhelming. Democrats in the three states unanimously or nearly unanimously agreed to the proposals, while Republicans were divided. (In California, legislative opponents voted “absent” rather than “no.”)
Because they affirm existing constitutional law, passage of the amendments would not change current practices. Before older state provisions outlawing same-sex marriage could be enforced, not only would the U.S. Supreme Court have to overrule Obergefell, but the U.S. Congress would have to repeal the Respect for Marriage Act. The RfMA is a bipartisan law passed in 2022 and signed by President Joe Biden that would require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. If Obergefell were to be overturned, the RfMA would have the legal effect of national recognition of same-sex marriages as long as at least one state approved such marriages.
There is some symbolic significance to Hawaii being among the states voting on a pro-gay-marriage amendment on Tuesday. A decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1993 made Hawaii the first state where courts seriously considered the constitutionality of restricting marriages to ones between a man and a woman. It was Hawaiian court cases that ended up mobilizing conservative Christians to place same-sex-marriage bans on state ballots.
Although there were some religious groups speaking out against this year’s measures before they were approved by legislatures, such groups have been relatively silent as the issues go to voters. According to Ballotpedia, in none of the three states is there formal, organized opposition to the amendments. In other words, at last report there were $0 in campaign contributions reported by any opponents.
In California, about $2.5 million in contributions have been reported by supporters, while the total in Colorado is approaching $0.6 million. In Hawaii, campaign spending in support has been minimal, totaling just under $42,000.