Denver, Colo., Sep 23, 2024 / 07:00 am
The state constitutions of California, Colorado, and Hawaii still define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, but measures on the 2024 election ballots in those states could remove this traditional definition.
The proposed removal of the long-standing language on marriage is largely seen as symbolic, since the U.S. Supreme Court already legalized same-sex marriage in all U.S. jurisdictions in its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Nonetheless, in 2020, Nevada became the first state to repeal its constitutional provision defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
In Colorado, the state constitution currently maintains that “only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” The ballot measure, if successful, would remove this definition, which has been defunct since 2015.
The “Protecting the Freedom to Marry” amendment, also known as Amendment J, has been added to the state’s November ballot after being approved by a two-thirds vote of the Colorado House and Senate.
Colorado’s bishops take a stand
Brittany Vessely, executive director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, noted that “while Obergefell made same-sex marriage status quo, there are still important considerations concerning [Amendment J].”
“Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social science that supports the reality that children need both a mother and a father to flourish,” Vessely told CNA. “This amendment rejects the truth of what marriage is.”
“This measure will change current Colorado law only if Obergefell is overturned,” Vessely noted. “If the decision is overturned, then there are no legal protections for marriage — the institution that best protects the interest of the family and children.”
The Colorado bishops made a statement opposing Amendment J earlier this year, saying that it was “imperative” for faithful Catholics to oppose Amendment J as well as a pro-abortion amendment that would allow public funding of abortion and enshrine abortion as a right in the constitution.
California’s bishops have not taken an official stance
Meanwhile, California’s ballot measure proposes to not only remove the definition of marriage, like Colorado’s, but also add the “right to marry” as a “fundamental right” in the state’s constitution. Known as Proposition 3, the measure would repeal the 2008 state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, is leading opposition to Proposition 3. “If you abolish the definition of marriage and say that marriage can mean anything, then marriage actually means nothing,” Keller pointed out.
Keller also warned that passage of the amendment could easily lead to the legalization of other irregular forms of marriage, including child marriage and polygamy.
According to Kathleen Domingo, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, California bishops have not taken an official stance on Proposition 3.
“The bishops of California have not taken a position on Prop 3,” Domingo told CNA. “If passed, Prop 3 will not affect Catholic institutions in any way,” she indicated.
Supporters of the measure include California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.
(Story continues below)
Hawaii’s bishops ‘will not take a formal position’ on the measure
Hawaii’s ballot measure would potentially remove a 1998 constitutional amendment that states that “the Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Subsequent to the 1998 amendment, Hawaii’s Marriage Equality Act of 2013 explicitly legalized same-sex marriage in the state two years before the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Eva Andrade, executive director of the Hawaii Catholic Conference, told CNA that removing the language from the state constitution would be “unnecessary.”
“The Hawaii Catholic Conference recognizes that in 1998, nearly 70% of voters granted state legislators the authority to define marriage,” she said. “Given that federal law now recognizes same-sex marriage, removing this language from the constitution is unnecessary.”
Andrade noted that the conference “will not take a formal position” on the ballot measure. She noted that “a ‘yes’ vote removes the 1998 language, protecting same-sex marriage if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns current law; a ‘no’ vote retains legislative authority to define marriage; and a blank vote counts as a ‘no’ vote.”
“In Hawaii, blank votes count as no votes, and the yes votes must be 51% to win,” Andrade said. “Historically speaking, changes to the constitution are difficult to make, and we must help the voters understand the process.”
American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, and the Democratic Party of Hawaii, among others, support the measure.
According to a 2023 Pew Research survey, 63% of Americans believe same-sex marriage should be legal, while 34% are against it. Support for same-sex marriage increased steadily in the U.S. from 2004 to 2017 while remaining steady since, according to Pew.
In point No. 46 of their 2023 document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States,” the country’s bishops state that “the family — based on marriage between a man and a woman — is the first and fundamental unit of society and is a sanctuary for the creation and nurturing of children. It should be defended and strengthened, not redefined, undermined, or further distorted. Respect for the family should be reflected in every policy and program.”
In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that “homosexual persons are called to chastity” and that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law and close the sexual act off from the gift of life, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Nos. 2359, 2357). The catechism also condemns any “unjust discrimination” toward people with homosexual inclinations.
