California Gives in to LGBTQ Lobby, Pushes to Add Legal Safeguard to Gay Marriage to State Constitution

California Democrats are pushing to reverse the voter-approved 2015 initiative Proposition 8 that constitutionally blocked the state from legally recognizing same-sex marriages prior to the Supreme Court decision in Hodges v. Obergefell that rendered it inoperative in 2015. Reportedly members of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus are concerned that the now majority conservative high-court may revisit the case.

According to The Associated Press, the Proposition 8 amendment to the California Constitution is still on the books, though it is non-functioning due to the SCOTUS ruling. However, in the recent ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade, in a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that Hodges v. Obergefell and many other cases that are predicated on the “demonstrably erroneous” legal concept of “substantive due process,” should be revisited.

He wrote, “I agree that ‘[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.’ Ante, at 66. For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”


State Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco, a member of the LGBTQ Caucus described the initiative raised and approved by a majority of  52.24% of the population as “poison,” “destructive,” and “humiliating.”

He told the AP, “It’s absolute poison, it is so destructive and it’s humiliating that this is in our constitution.”

In a tweet, he called the law upholding the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and woman “a hateful attack on LGBTQ people.”

Wiener also spearheaded SB 145 last year. According to The Western Journal, under the guise of fighting anti-LGBTQ discrimination, CA legislators deliberately weakened state laws designed to protect children from sexual abuse by adults.

The Journal explained, “SB 145 diminishes protections for victims of homosexual predators by making it possible for them to avoid felony charges and the sex offender registry as long as the offender is within 10 years of the age of their victim. A 24-year-old predator, for instance, could theoretically receive leniency for sexual crimes committed against a 15-year-old.”

Clearly, more than half of the state’s voters disagreed. Radical leftist Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) spoke in support of the move.

“It’s time that our laws affirm marriage equality regardless of who you are or who you love,” Newsom said. “California stands with the LGBTQ+ community and their right to live freely.”

Assembly Member Evan Low of Silicon Valley, another member of the caucus, seemed to take the matter personally. He told the press, “Why do fellow Californians hate me?” he said. “Why do they feel that my rights should be eliminated?”

In December 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Democrat-drafted, sponsored, and passed Respect for Marriage Act requiring all fifty states to legally recognize same-sex marriage. This act wouldn’t apply, however, if Hodges v. Obergefell is overturned.

You can follow Matt Holloway on FacebookTwitterTruthSocialGettrGab & Parler

Get Updated

© 2023 DC Enquirer, Privacy Policy