Congrats California! I Hope Your Daughter and Her Dog Enjoy a Long and

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

It’s an amazing trick when a group of voters defy Godly law, human nature, decency, and common sense with one move. Such is the case of California’s Proposition 3, a constitutional change redefining marriage to include anything. No really.

It may sound like a stretch to make that pronouncement now, but you can bet that soon throuples, people who want to marry children, and people who want to marry their life-sized plastic blow-up doll will do just that.

On a day when Californians exhibited a frisson of sanity long enough to approve another initiative to make crime illegal again, these self-same voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 3. When I checked the vote at 1:30 Wednesday morning, the constitutional amendment was passing by shy of a two-to-one margin, with 78% of the votes counted. Good grief.

This is based on the very sober legal analysis of the California Family Council, which has been warning of this very result for months now. The cities of Berkeley and Oakland have already passed ordinances allowing marriages of “polyamorous’ throuples.

Leather-chaps-wearing, anything-goes San Francisco State Senator Scott Wiener drew up with another gay activist what may have sounded to the ear like a reasonable enough constitutional amendment. What could possibly go wrong with an amendment that asserted a “constitutional right to marriage”? Everything could go wrong, that’s what.

But like all slippery lawmakers, there was more here than voters probably knew. I explained it in a recent election edition of the West Coast, Messed Coast™ report:

Indeed, California Family Council and supporting legal organizations contend that by changing the language of the state constitution to a generic statement that “marriage is a fundamental right,” it would cease to specify if first cousins could marry, underaged persons could marry, how many persons could be involved in a marriage, or if they have to be human beings.

San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener, the fringe gay blade from the Castro District, says Come now, would I ever back a constitutional amendment to erase traditional marriage? Lil’ ol’ me?

The California Family Council confirms this proposition “threatens to fundamentally alter the definition of marriage in California, repeal Proposition 8, and erase the language that upholds marriage as a union exclusively between one man and one woman.” Oh, is that all? They note that marriage is a “foundational principle” and “bedrock of our society” but oopsie, the voters forgot about civilizational values.

The group says, “Its removal could have far-reaching and destructive consequences,” such as not defining what creature a person may marry. Indeed, a marriage partner need not be human. How do we know this? There’s nothing else in the law about what constitutes a marriage except that there is a “fundamental right” to it.

California voters were beguiled by the sincere-sounding politicos who told them passing this monstrosity was about “equity.” Voters are heroes! They are so daring and brave!

Sooner or later — probably sooner – sister wives, child brides, and incest will be considered normal. Or else you’re a bigot, normal people.

Like Proposition 47, which Kamala and company told voters would be so much more equitable to rapists, voters will be back in a decade or so, fighting for the safety of their children after they realize the evil they set free on November 5, 2024.