Prop. 3 explained l California 2024 election

[@InZoid]

Proposition 3 isn't about the age of consent. People need to stop spreading propaganda But, Ask why Arkansas has their age of consent at 16..

[@Gizm0_9]

💯💯💯💙💙

[@Techridr]

Nearly half the states are 16 (some 17), much of the world is as well. When I was a kid, in Hawaii, it was 14. If you enter the military, it's 16. Sure, I'd rather it all be 18, but why should we be specifically concerned with Arkansas consent laws when this is about California and also about a different matter?

[@killero00]

@@TechridrI gather opponents of this prop may be trying to misinform people and framing the prop as a change in age of consent.

[@JessJoanne]

Why ask Arkansas? I looked up the state constitution itself. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. It is right there in the constitution. No need to change anything or worry about another state.

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

I voted Yes on Prop3. My ballot is already in. 💙🇺🇲✌️

[@SIKSnaples]

Voting Yes means. Same sex marriage will be officially legalized, same sex marriage is legal but can be overturned by a court in the future or anytime. So voting yes will protect lbgtq rights even from future court laws that would want to make same sex marriage illegal.

[@ChrisJones-rm7uu]

I will be voting no like the majority of california

[@rwalltech]

Voting Yes. It's time for California to protect gay couple's right to marry. The arguments against prop 3 are the same same old scare tactics that opponents have used going back to at least prop 22. They are empty and without merit. Gay marriage has been legal in California for 10+ years now without any of the consequences opponents of same sex marriage warned of. The only thing that happened is gay couples were allowed to marry and move on with their lives. Listening to opponents is like chicken little claiming the sky will fall.

[@ChrisJones-rm7uu]

@@rwalltech They need to bring prop 8 back.See what happens when they got rid of it.The transgenders went crazy

[@JessJoanne]

No, it can't be overturned by a court. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. Voting yes doesn't protect anyone. Every consenting adult is already protected since the ruling.

[@SIKSnaples]

@@JessJoanne it is not officially written in the California constitution. Article I, Section 7.5. READ IT! It means that it’s not an official law.

[@killero00]

I have no particular stance on lgbt but since the prop costs nothing I don’t see why not

[@soppysoup]

this is how everyone should think

[@letsgotosleep3541]

It's 2024 and we're still debating this???

[@susannahwijsen1277]

Because in the same way that Roe v Wade was overturned, the conservative agenda of the current Supreme Court could reverse the law.

[@99runners]

Yes and we will never stop fighting for the kids rights !

[@miriamzavala5028]

@@99runners what kids ??? what are you talking about?? This has nothing to do with kids!!!

[@miryamishot]

If we keep lying to our kids and let them know, they can do whatever they want, they will be on the streets. Children deserve to be told the truth. When they are adults, they can make their decision about certain things in life and live the life that they want, but when they are children and they are still young adults, we should not lie to them. We are feeling our children with trash in their minds instead of just letting them be children and maybe later on in life decide what they want, but this has gotten to be too much way too much

[@fabian7463]

Gay marriage has been legal in California since 2013. This new prop that has passed now removed the language of who can marry who. Now I bet in years to come, someone will be allowed to marry an animal.

[@notgerbl]

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES - YES vote on this measure means: Language in the California Constitution would be updated to match who currently can marry. There would be no change in who can marry. NO - NO vote on this measure means: Language in the California Constitution would not be changed. There would be no change in who can marry. ARGUMENTS: PRO - Proposition 3 protects Californians' freedom to marry, regardless of their race or gender. Proposition 3 removes discriminatory language from the California Constitution stating marriage is only between a man and a woman. Proposition 3 reinforces California's commitment to civil rights and protects personal freedom. Vote YES! CON - Proposition 3 removes all rules for marriage, opening the door to child marriages, incest, and polygamy. It changes California's constitution even though same-sex marriage is already legal. By making moms and dads optional, it puts children at risk. This careless measure harms families and society. Vote No on Proposition 3.

[@rustyshackleford6035]

I'm voting Yes and this is the easiest question on the ballot 🗳️ besides who I to be the next president which is Harris

[@rwalltech]

Easy yes here! Same sex marriage has been legal for over 10 years in California and has harmed no one. It's time to remove outdated, unenforceable language from our constitution. Opponents are using the same old scare tactics about child marriages and incest etc that they have used for the last 20 years. They haven't happened and won't happen. Listening to opponents is like chicken little claiming the sky will fall.

[@Official.raymundo]

i agree with people in the comments. This has no risk to the nuclear family and causes no harm. people are acting as if more and more lgbtq relationsips will come out of no where but there has always been just wasnt able to declare it. so this is a great prop.plus it doesnt even affect me

[@ZZ-ic4vk]

If it has no effect on existing state of family affairs -- WHY would you change it? If prop 3 is so insignificant, why waste millions $$ on trying to change the constitution?

[@Official.raymundo]

@@ZZ-ic4vk because now a days people care too much about HOW things are said instead of WHAT is being said. its literally them being dumb enough to spend money for semantics. Clear example, people dont like trump cus of how he speaks, even tho its facts. so this doesnt affect the nuclear family.

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

​@@ZZ-ic4vkAsk the Supreme Court.

[@SIKSnaples]

The law can be overturned in the future, which I believe is unfortunate, people should have the freedom to marry regardless of gender and race. This won’t cost any money to tax payers, it will actually increase money to California since filling documents costs money.

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

@@ZZ-ic4vk The reason for proposition 3 is to repeal an old gay marriage ban that is still in the CA constitution, by doing this it prevents it from becoming illegal again in the future. A justice on the Supreme Court has suggested he wants to revisit the Obergefell decision which legalized gay marriage nationwide, so removing the ban from CA's constution is a necessary preemptive step. It will cost the state no money and will actually bring more money in in the long run as more marriages benefit the economy.

[@nonexistent2335]

The no reason is crazy LOL where does "regardless of sex or race" mention incest? ummm....make it make sense.

[@maribelavalosdemora4860]

Vote NO if you don’t want to see someone marrying an animal

[@code96roblox]

This just isn’t the case. This bill will just bring California’s constitution up to date with federal law. The way the federal law has been for 8 years. Have you seen anyone marrying animals in the past 8 years?

[@NoHandle44]

Animals don't have rights.

[@rustyshackleford6035]

It's sickening that you think a same couple marrying is the same as someone marrying an animal if I met you real I would nothing to do with you based on that one comment 🙎🏻🏳️‍🌈

[@Adrian-qq3zz]

Lying is a sin

[@2percent153]

'NO' ON PROP 3

[@roetilliceline2917]

A good look at the opponents' website convinced me to vote YES! I can't believe people are still trying to impose the trad family down other people's throats.

[@dobelEXP]

I dont get how a no would stop a constitution law.

[@AR-bv9hx]

It wouldn't. Nothing changes. People who want to vote yes believe it protects same-sex marriage into the future, especially if the constitutional law (nation wide) were to be overturned like Roe. This isn't necessarily true. A Supreme Court law is the law of the land regardless, unless the court specifically leaves it up to the states which may or may not occur.

[@JessJoanne]

@Jackz77 Different races are already protected. Don't be fooled. Different races have been protected far longer than same sex couples. The wording for the change is not clear, nor specific enough. Prop 8 was already ruled unconstitutional and this fear mongering over the roe v wade is so irrelevant. Just look at our constitution. It says nothing about interracial marriage not being protected.

[@mslpfanatik]

@@AR-bv9hx If you are unaware there is a court case that was filed earlier this year to challenge the Obergefell ruling. With the makeup of the current SCOTUS justices there is a high likelihood of it being overturned. That is why removing this language from the state Constitution and replacing it with language that expressly protects their marriages. We saw this when Roe was overturned. The ruling is under threat. In other decisions justices have also stated that the Loving v Virginia ruling should be revisited. This is the ruling that allows interracial marriages. This change in language would also protect those marriages in the future as the language says marriage is a fundamental human right.

[@mslpfanatik]

@@JessJoanne See my comment to @AR-by9hx. As a woman married to a Black man, I am not betting that my marriage wouldn't be overturned by the justices that currently occupy SCOTUS. None.

[@Vamanos46]

No risk of any potential harm. Low priority in my book

[@ZZ-ic4vk]

That's why it makes sense to vote NO on 3

[@ryanhood4374]

@@ZZ-ic4vk how does this affect you at all? why not just let people live and get rid of some useless paper that is doing nothing

[@Skerp129]

​​@@ryanhood4374you want a child to get married to an adult? That's basically the consequence of voting in favor of prop 3

[@jobideng3126]

@@ryanhood4374 like you said its useless then why even bother to remove it??

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

​@@Skerp129that's not how that works. All it does is remove the "only man and woman" language. Stop strawmanning.

[@joeyex2684]

I am voting NO for this

[@rxboy]

Comments helped more than the video.

[@drunkenelmo98]

Fr tho. Why did they make this video more complicated than it is?

[@chrisitl]

A BIG FAT YES!

[@rwalltech]

I'm voting yes! Same sex marriage has been legal for over 10 years in california. It harmed no one and greatly benefitted same sex couples. Its time to repeal old, unenforcebale language that could potential threaten same sex couples in the future.

[@alisont.6940]

This is an easy yes - not a bond issue or taxes or anything. Just get rid of an overruled law that was always ugly.

[@jharrissv]

@@alisont.6940 There’s extra slip ins with Prop 3, such as being able to marry a child and incest. They’re not telling the full story.

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

​@@jharrissvnot true. The language that it removes from the constitution is "marriage is only between a man and woman".

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

@@jharrissv This is not true. The language in the proposition makes no mention of children or family and would not change how marriages are conducted in California.

[@JessJoanne]

No one is getting rid of any ugly law. There is NO law against same sex marriage in California. I don't even think they read a thing before voting to get this on our ballot. It is so clear in our constitution that prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. It is right there, in writing. What is unclear and not specific enough is how it will be worded if this does pass.

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

Prop3 is for consenting adults. It protects people of different races to be married and gay marriage. It makes this a law. I voted Yes on prop3. Ballot is already in.

[@stabinghobo57]

It also protects pedophiles and bestiality people. Vote NO 🗳️

[@rwalltech]

Yes on 3! It's time to protect same sex couples marriages. Gay marriage has been legal in california for over 10 years. It's time to get rid of the useless law that is prop 8.

[@G.eeezyy]

Fuck that

[@rich2209]

Not legal in God's eyes. It's wickedness

[@elyoryarchila5666]

Im voting NO, Marriage should be between a woman and a man only

[@mslpfanatik]

So question for you. Do you think the government should have any say who YOU love and YOUR right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? If your answer is NO, why do you think it should have the right to interfere in any other Californians right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness just because they happen to LGBTQ+? Lastly, if your opposition is based on religious convictions - why do you think others should have to live by YOUR religious convictions? It's YOUR faith. Not everyone else's. Your rights end where other people's rights begin.

[@DeathToMayo]

Well at least you're honest about being a bigot. A lot of people here aren't willing to do that and just lie about this proposition instead.

[@rich2209]

No, not the government, but God Almightybhas a say. You know He has written the laws in your heart and know that it is wrong. You know deep down this is an abomination to Him. ​@mslpfanatik

[@rustyshackleford6035]

​@@rich2209I'm a Christian and I disagree with everything you just said Marriage between two people who love each other that's it 🙎🏻🏳️‍🌈

[@rich2209]

@rustyshackleford6035 trust me, you're not christian. Clearly you have not read your bible.

[@KennishaC]

Voting No!😊

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

Most of you no ppl aren't in usa. Focus on your 3rd world country.

[@Adrian-qq3zz]

Will happily vote to ban your marriage if there’s an opportunity 🥰

[@MrWumboJumbo]

Voted yes because I’m not a POS

[@swat007jp]

Vote no

[@DericNg-df7gw]

Hell no

[@rustyshackleford6035]

This the easiest question on the ballot 🗳️ for me to answer it's a Hell Yes on Prop 3 I'm for LGBT rights 🏳️‍🌈🌊💙

[@NatalieSelene]

After what they did with Roe, I'll vote to take that shit out of the constitution. I wish more people would have insisted on being specific about abortion rights in the federal constitution and I hope the LGBTQ+ community considers voting in favor of women's reproductive rights this year. Let's stand up for each other.

[@gabriela29ish]

NO!!!! Jesús is King!

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

​@InkCoastz Vote yes💙💙 💯🌊🌊🌊

[@DeathToMayo]

Jesus would be disappointed in your hatred.

[@Adrian-qq3zz]

Not everyone is a sky daddy worshipper, don’t be narcissistic

[@Gizm0_9]

Yes💙💙💙

[@gocnhingioitre6508]

No

[@Gizm0_9]

​@@gocnhingioitre6508 I already voted Yes.. Cope

[@realkingbob-x5m]

Voted NO on this one. Marriage is between a man and a woman

[@soppysoup]

womp womp, it does really affect you at all weirdo

[@wackedout13]

A big F NO!!!!’

[@gwafakoh6601]

No… follow what the Bible says!!! No one Proposition 3

[@laclika13chico]

Most un American statement we need separation from church and state buddy

[@gwafakoh6601]

@@laclika13chico no… on Proposition 3..

[@DeathToMayo]

Most people don't have biblical marriages. If you want to have a religious marriage between a man and a woman you still have that freedom. Hope this clears up your confusion.

[@tn6504]

I don't care how you guys poke each other but it's a big NO on prop 3 for me.

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

I voted yes💙

[@Gizm0_9]

Prop3 also protects people of different races who are married. I don't care if confederates hit the meth pipe. Just don't post online after you do.

[@mrjsegura9079]

Why aren't they saying anything about child marriages or polygamy? They have to be totally transparent. NO!

[@Official.raymundo]

this is false it does not mention changes to state marriage laws.

[@JoseHernandez-dd3mj]

@@Official.raymundoYes it is,if this proposition pass,you can get married even with you dog,with whoever you want,even with a minor.

[@Official.raymundo]

@@JoseHernandez-dd3mj not true it’s only speaks on race and gender not age limits at all.

[@Official.raymundo]

@@JoseHernandez-dd3mj if you could find the sentence where it says she if appreciate eit

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

​@@JoseHernandez-dd3mjthis is a classic propoganda point used by gay marriage opponents since the 2000s when they sought to ban it. They made claims about "if gay marriage is legalized or codified it will lead to dog marriages" which has not happened, and will not happen.

[@Marine_0317]

Why can't they just keep it simple instead of all of this legal mumble jumble confusing voters. If you vote YES it means you're for it and if you vote NO you're not. How about that?

[@KayKay_Monaie]

Marriage should be between man and woman.

[@jean-christophetates-lecle9960]

Why? Argue against same sex marriage without falling back to religion challenge: impossible difficulty

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

@@KayKay_Monaie I disagree. Same-sex couples should not be treated unequally and locked out of the benefits that marriages provide simply because of the religious beliefs of others. You can have this opinion and not be against this right.

[@Gizm0_9]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Gizm0_9]

​@@ilikespaghetti4458 Religion isn't anti gay. Authoritarians are anti gay. Authoritarianism is a mental disorder.

[@2percent153]

Yes marriage is only man and woman. No matter what a woman needs a man to produce and even without a man she needs his sperm to produce. God word and law marriage is between a man and woman.

[@ROMANE-4.20]

Any trump common sense people that believe in marriage is only man and woman not the opposite can explain this ?

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

Huh LMFAO

[@DeathToMayo]

I'm not sure you know what common sense is.

[@tiffanyjiang123]

YES on Prop 3! Marriage is a constitutional right!

[@ramonsmediablog]

VOTE NO! 🎉

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

@@ramonsmediablog I would vote yes. There is no reason not to that does not rely on misinformation or prejudice.

[@BlowitAllUp]

Voting No

[@Gizm0_9]

Voting YES💙🌊

[@gocnhingioitre6508]

Voting no

[@keith3634]

Yes. But IDK why this wasn’t done in like 2016 after the fed changed it.

[@Morethanacolor]

Until complete inclision becomes a reality, my V for VOTER ...will stand with the E, excluded. There it there and let that be the reason.

[@MrPromethium0157]

Yes on prop 3

[@jharrissv]

Yes on Prop 3 also means yes on marrying a child, and incest. This isn’t the full story for prop 3.

[@MrPromethium0157]

@@jharrissv No, you are just making this up. Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they are a groomer/pedo. In fact, it is likelier a higher percentage of straight people are groomers than gay people.

[@Official.raymundo]

@@jharrissv this is false it does not mention changes to state marriage laws.

[@Skerp129]

​@@MrPromethium0157Its on the official booklet that was handed out, did you not bother reading it?

[@Bailey-cx7zz]

@@MrPromethium0157 it's a straight up bill because it takes the language in our state constitution that prevents you from marrying a child. It also allows for polygamy which I actually don't have an issue with. But to allow your child to make decision on marriage is not okay. They just need to make a straight bill to add same sex marriage in the constitution nobody would be against that. So this is not the bill.

[@margaritarangel3408]

No on proposition 3 marriage is man and women.

[@code96roblox]

Get with the times man. Like really? Gay marriage has been legal for Years, how has it hurt you in any way?

[@punchline43]

"Man and women"? So you're for polygamy?

[@LunaJuarez-l5n]

NO

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

​@InkCoastz I voted yes💙💙💙

[@alijamali4148]

any proposition gonna increase your taxes please vote. No this one doesn’t increase it so you can say yes.

[@sl4983]

Oh, we can make a law a "zombie law"? Ok, good to know.

[@Vamanos46]

That's not what they are saying. It's an unenforceable law or overridden by something else. No one needed to make it a zombie.

[@sl4983]

@@Vamanos46 They said it's a zombie law.

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

A "zombie law" is what you would call a law that is on the books but is unenforceable. In this case California still has a 2008 ban on same-sex marriage in its constitution which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2015 in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. This new ballot measures seeks to remove that 2008 ban language from the constitution.

[@YeseniaGarcia-iw3ty]

No

[@SIKSnaples]

That means the court can overturn the law in the future, it’s not protected and it’s not officially written in the California constitution.

[@YeseniaGarcia-iw3ty]

No ❤

[@YeseniaGarcia-iw3ty]

​@FrogVille-u3v may God bless you cuz you're going to need it ❤

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

​@FrogVille-u3v I voted Yes as well. 💙💙💙💙🇺🇲

[@Techridr]

EASY Yes!

[@jackslap2276]

This explained NOTHING!!! Your closing statement of the video explained ZERO!!! Please use Laymans English to tell us what voting YES, and voting NO on Prop 3 would actually BE!!! we don’t need your official, technical or red tape jargon! Is prop 3 FOR or AGAINST same-sex marriage??? Please answer plainly and directly or redo this video!!! I won’t trust anyone else’s response, other than the organization that posted it. I should not have to post a comment like this on a government channel in order to get a straight answer!!! Terrible of you.

[@SIKSnaples]

Voting Yes means. Same sex marriage will be officially legalized, same sex marriage is legal but can be overturned by a court in the future or anytime. So voting yes will protect lbgtq rights even from future court laws that would want to make same sex marriage illegal.

[@SIKSnaples]

Voting no means courts will have the right to overturn same sex marriage in the future, the California constitution says “marriage is between a men and a woman. Even tho same sex marriage is legal. Voting no means you believe marriage is only between a man and a woman.

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

@@jackslap2276 Voting 'Yes' on Proposition 3 would be for same-sex marriage. Voting 'no' would be against. The proposition seeks to remove a gay marriage ban from the state constitution. It's already unenforceable due to court rulings but could come back into effect in the future if they were ever overturned. This is a real concern as the Supreme Court has suggested overturning Obergefell. The proposition is preemptive and if it passes it will not effect how marriage are performed, therefore not costing the state any money. In fact, it could actually benefit the economy in the long run, as more weddings brings more money.

[@Gizm0_9]

Voting yes💙 Vote Kamala💙

[@MrSalvador1971]

I will definitively vote No on preposition 3.

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

You aren't in usa 😂😂😂😂😂

[@MrSalvador1971]

@@ReportPutinsTrolls I am, I live California.

[@MrSalvador1971]

@@ReportPutinsTrolls voting no on 3

[@nyx6287]

​@@ReportPutinsTrolls I noticed a lot of the people saying no are in Vietnam. 😂 I check accounts. A lot have 1-2 posts and live outside USA.

[@nyx6287]

Yes on Prop3 🌊 Protect people of other races married and gay marriage. The confederacy will never rise.

[@ZZ-ic4vk]

Ask yourself - WHO is behind the Prop 3? WHO will benefit from this change and WHY this is so crucially important for these people?

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

California legislature proposed it. Gay and interracial couples will benefit from it as well as the state economy more broadly as more weddings brings more money. It's important because the right to marry is fundamental for many people's lives and provides many benefits you can't get otherwise. It's also important because the Supreme Court has hinted it wants to reverse the case that legalized gay marriages nationwide, so changing this language will help keep it legal in California.

[@Gizm0_9]

Voting YES 💙🌊

[@alexcanatri5082]

We want the same rights as straight people that’s all it’s not hard

[@ChrisJones-rm7uu]

​@@ilikespaghetti4458Interracial couples have nothing to do with this stop with this b.S

[@ChrisJones-rm7uu]

​@@alexcanatri5082You have the same rights as straight people's stop

[@selahcmusic]

marriage is a religious practice and it should only be between a man and a woman. create a new practice for this modern day and call it something other than marriage giving them the same rights as marriage. Stop trying to force religious people to change what they have been believing for centuries but create something new for these new age people😂

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

Religion isn't homophobic USA has separation of church and state Prop3 also protects ppl of different races married. The cuckfederacy lost. I voted YES💙

[@DeathToMayo]

Marriage is far older than any religion you're likely to see practiced today. But maybe you're more used to parents assigning a spouse to their children for business purposes.

[@marcduchamp5512]

There’s gotta be some catch to this, gotta find out more

[@rafaelcarrasco2600]

There is if you read the General Election book how crazy this is and why it is even put on is just nuts.

[@InZoid]

There isn't. I haven't seen anything. I have seen alt righties spread propaganda. This proposition doesn't change the age of consent. Why won't the alt right ask why Arkansas age of consent is 16!

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

@@marcduchamp5512 There really isn't. It would change nothing about how marriages are conducted in California, all it would do is remove the old unenforceable gay marriage ban from the constitution, which could snap back into effect in the future if Obergefell were ever overturned (something a justice on the Supreme Court has suggested should happen). By preemptively doing this it ensures marriage equality remains legal in California no matter what. It will cost the state no money and will actually bring in more as the economy benefits from more weddings.

[@AR-bv9hx]

I feel like this too. I would like the language changed, but what are they going to change it to? Leaving the language vague could be problematic later on.

[@JessJoanne]

Just look at the California constitution. Prop 8 was already ruled unconstitutional. There is no need for an unclear change. The words 'fundamental right' is not clear enough or specific enough. As our constitution stands. Same sex couple's, who are consenting adults, are already protected.

[@interoffice5402]

What's different (besides the side morally grandstanding) between this and Prop 8? If Prop 8 that defined marriage as a man and a woman, a decision supported by the majority of Californians, was overturned by an activist judge, couldn't an activist court just decide to ignore the will of the people again and overturn Prop 3 if it passes?

[@Gizm0_9]

Prop3 will make it a law for people of different races and gay marriage to be protected.. Trump judges won't be able to overturn it like they did with roe.

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

​@@Gizm0_9 The confederates are against prop3. I already voted yes.

[@RobbieSuede13]

Sorry but I'm voting No

[@punchline43]

That's ok, l forgive you.

[@NezzConstantine]

I agree with the sentiment of any adult freely marrying, but the way this prop is written up leaves open unintended consequences. Rewrite the prop to clearly define adult consent and other unintended side effects and then I will sign.

[@alisont.6940]

Thanks for the explanation. That's a no-brainer - yes on 3, get rid of outdated zombie law.

[@Bailey-cx7zz]

There's a lot more to proposition 3 then that. If that was just the case, it would be fine. But in proportion 3 now you can marry kids. You can also have polygamy which in my opinion is not an issue. The part with the kids is. It takes rights away from parents. So if some rich guy wants to marry your 14 daughter he can now and there's nothing you can do about it. He's now the guardian of your child. They always slip some extra stuff in these propositions. All they need to do is make it simple same sex marriage proposal.

[@darulababygaming1920]

Absolutely right ‼️

[@darulababygaming1920]

No on proposition three

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

​​@@Bailey-cx7zzthis is not true, and is classic strawmanning and propoganda spread by opponents of gay marriage. They said the exact same things when they sought to ban it in the 2000s and since becoming legal it has never happened.

[@jean-christophetates-lecle9960]

Not even true, You know that law was a ballot measure that was approved in 2008 right? The campaign was specifically about same sex marriage, why do you think the law only mentions man and woman, proposition 3 wants to overrule that, sorry but that argument is so disingenuous, child marriage is happening in California yet that zombie law is still in the book, either you know you’re lying or you’ve been lied to and didn’t do any research.

[@user-kn9tt6ny3v]

NO STOP RAISING TAX AND COST OF LIVING. Raise money from donation.

[@code96roblox]

This prop has no impact on taxes.

[@petegilmour1337]

All the blue waves in the comments saying YES....lets me know i need to vote NO

[@YeseniaGarcia-iw3ty]

This will affect your children and their values vote no California ❤

[@MrSalvador1971]

I will vote No

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

​@@MrSalvador1971 Most of you no people aren't in usa.

[@MrSalvador1971]

@@ReportPutinsTrolls I live in California for more than 30 years

[@ReportPutinsTrolls]

@@MrSalvador1971 I don't believe you. Sorry.

[@MrSalvador1971]

@@ReportPutinsTrolls it doesn’t matter.

[@rafamize7068]

Nah

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

Yeah! 🏳️‍🌈

[@danchamberlain6069]

I agree that children are raised best by a mother and a father but these women are divorcing at an alarming rate so why not have two loving fathers raise the children ?

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

There have actually been studies that show gay couples raise kids just as well and even in some ways better than straight parents! I would vote yes personally. There is no harm.

[@SIKSnaples]

This is incorrect my dad was abusive and assaulted my mom multiple times, they live like cats and dogs. It was traumatizing.

[@InZoid]

Two fathers, 2 mothers, a father and mother. Those 3 should remain legal.

[@DeathToMayo]

Divorce rates have actually gone down in recent years. But that's besides the point. Two parents tend to be more successful than one regardless of gender or sex. It's pretty obvious that two responsible adults working together to raise a child would be more likely to do well. All the panic about "kids need a father and mother" were proven wrong.

[@BloodSugarS3XMajik]

I do believe that we as a people deserve the freedom to marry the person you love but (I know I will incur internet hatred for this but here i go) I do think it is a very slippery slope to loosing freedoms as a whole people if we allow any changes to any kind of wording on the constitution. There is a big part of me that feels I'm too paranoid about the dangers of government taking our freedoms away but there is a small part of me that truly believes this is them testing to see how much they can revise the only document that truly protects us from them to a likeness that will eventually just protect them from us. I mean we are not voting on how they change the language exactly we are just giving them the permission to change the "dated" language, who's to say they won't one day say our amendments were written in a "dated and "racist" way that should be corrected to reflect modern views? In this context you'd probably think I'm overreacting but this really is how governments slowly take away freedoms. Not here to argue just stating my inner thoughts. I respect your opinion more importantly your vote.

[@rich2209]

Abomination to the Lord

[@dianascrimger284]

You cannot marry an also known as!

[@Azteca619]

No anything that goes against GODS plan is wrong

[@DeathToMayo]

How could something be against God's plan? If he's omnipotent and omniscient and created all of us, wouldn't everything we do be in his plan? Are you saying homosexuals are more powerful than God?

[@ZZ-ic4vk]

prop 3 demonstrates very clearly that no matter how Slippery a slope is, it's NEVER enough... When does it stop?

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

How is this a "Slippery slope" thing? Gay marriage has been legal in California for more than 10 years, this would change nothing but codify it in the constitution.

[@InZoid]

Ask Arkansas that Proposition 3 is just about opposite and same sex. It doesn't change the age of consent. Did you know the Confederate states like the age of consent low. Arkansas only recently raised it to 16! Proposition 3 doesn't change the age of consent. CA age of consent is 18. Arkansas 16.

[@BIGDAWG91331]

So theres something left out if voted yes means your alowing ppl to marie family members and kids

[@InZoid]

Incorrect. Proposition 3 isn't about the age of consent. People need to stop spreading propaganda But, Ask why Arkansas has their age of consent at 16..

[@ilikespaghetti4458]

@@BIGDAWG91331 Not at all. All it does is remove the provisions that banned marriage between two people of the same sex, there has been no mention of family members or kids and to say that that's even in the conversation is blatant fear mongering and strawmanning. This was actually quite a common scare tactic during anti-gay marriage campaigns in the 2000s, but now that gay marriage has been legal for more than a decade these fears have not manifested. If you're really worried about child marriages, maybe bring that up with the countless red states where it is actually legal, and Republicans legislatures refuse to outlaw it.

[@Gizm0_9]

That is alt right propaganda. STOP!! Vote Yes, Sane humans.💙💙

[@BIGDAWG91331]

@@Gizm0_9 gay marries alred legal

[@MrSalvador1971]

That is correct

[@beingtoreyjohnson8874]

Measurement 35

[@TheCalifornioCA]

Who gives a 💩 y’all are doing to much

[@jean-christophetates-lecle9960]

Why do you care? Yes it is symbolic but still means something to same sex couples. Is it because deep inside you do want same sex marriage to be illegal?

[@CounterSeal]

@@jean-christophetates-lecle9960 Well, he is right. Who gives a damn about people's love for each other and what they do in their bedroom. Probably the easiest YES vote for 2024 here.

[@TheCalifornioCA]

@InkCoastz Mexicans for Trump 2024

[@YeseniaGarcia-iw3ty]

I agree vote No ❤

[@YeseniaGarcia-iw3ty]

​@@jean-christophetates-lecle9960 they're trying to take over the whole world y'all already got gay marriage approved why do you guys need to have it in the books for it's annoying there's too much gay s*** everywhere in California even trying to bring it to the school that stuff shouldn't matter and other people should be more focused on education than getting married and worried about being gay

[@joeyrojas5230]

🤫

[@dianascrimger284]

Maybe we should have told the social security office that even though we do not have enough credits we feel that we should get social security! We are hetereosexual so we were asked about whether it should be xander or willow? We had to choose willow ao he could do the work on the show! Yet the government still separates church and state!

[@stabinghobo57]

A YES vote will allow me to Marry my Dog! 🐕

[@code96roblox]

Good luck with that

[@idktony1676]

NO