Limits on Marriage- Hidden Consequences

Californian voters should reject the pending limits on marriage constitutional amendment in the November election. It may have simple language restricting marriage for heterosexual couples, but even without explicit restrictions against domestic partnerships or any parallel institution such as civil unions. Courts in other states have rejected benefits such as health insurance for domestic partners because these benefits are marriage like and it’s against the spirit of the law in the state of Michigan.

Marriage has special meaning to millions of Californians, although more voters are moving towards the opinion of the marriage equality movement. The opposition is better funded to deny rights to many Californians. Perhaps we could have a grand compromise where religious institutions would have freedom of association where they can deny marriage to those who they see fit. However civil marriage would be open to any pair of adult Californians.

If we want to win the fight in November we could basically use the prior case precedents of how marriage restriction amendments have hidden implications despite the deceptive yet simple language of the Knight-Hollingsworth amendment. Our state government should have the right to provide domestic partnership benefits to bring in the best and brightest to our state. If we pass this initiative we can expect affected individuals leaving government jobs or moving to the private industry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *