What Else Would the New Amendment Do?

I was reading through Peter Henderson's Reuters story and I noticed something very interesting about the language submitted to California state authorities in hopes of getting a ballot measure intended to repeal the California Marriage Amendment.

Trying to get confirmation, I went to the website of "Love Honor Cherish" and was linked to this piece by Seth Hemmelgarn, and the language is the same there.

[More after the jump.]

The proposal, submitted Wednesday night by Love Honor Cherish, removes Prop 8's language in the state constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" and replaces it with "Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion."

Legally, most of this language is unnecessary for the claimed purpose of the ballot measure. All the measure needs to do is repeal the California Marriage Amendment, and by default brideless couples and groomless couples will be able to get marriage licenses again. Or, if it would make them feel better to actually have their own "positive" amendment, all it has to do is say that licenses "shall not be restricted on the basis of sex or gender" of either participant. Instead, they include race, color, creed, national origin, and religion – even though that is has long been effect in California already. Why? Likely as a marketing ploy. They will market the measure as preventing discrimination against people based on any of those categories.

But to me, the kicker is including ancestry in the list. Like race, color, creed, national origin, and religion, the law already doesn't care about ancestry when it comes to issuing marriage licenses, and those categories cover the ancestry issue. But how hard would it be for someone to successfully argue that since the state constitution prevents ancestry from being taken into account, marriage licenses must also be issued to incestuous couples upon request? And, thus, there is a "right" to incest between consenting adults, or even between a father and his minor daughter, who... ta-da!... he grants permission to marry... him. I'll be generous and say that’s not the intention of the authors. But it would still be law.

The proposed ballot language also prohibits courts from requiring priests, ministers, rabbis, or other religious authorities "to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs."

"The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution," the proposed ballot language reads.

This is an attempt to get some of the "Yes on 8" voters to support, or at least not oppose, this new measure. They shouldn’t fall for it. If this were to be adopted into the state constitution, how long would it be before marriage neutering advocates would be working to get that clause restricted or repealed with arguments like, "How can we allow such discrimination against these marriages when these marriages are part of our state constitution?"

It is a bogus compromise. We already have that protection under the California Marriage Amendment. We don't need to go along with marriage neutering to get it. It would be like offering us "freedom of speech" if we go against our convictions and give them what they are asking. Gee, thanks.