OFFICE OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER
Evan Low
TWENTY-SIXTH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
Staff Contact: Mao Yang, [email protected], (916) 319-2026 Last updated: 02/25/2023
CAPITOL OFFICE
1021 O Street, Suite 6110
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2026
Fax: (916) 319-2126
WEBSITE
http://asmdc.org/members/a26/
DISTRICT OFFICE
20111 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 220
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 446-2810
Fax: (408) 446-2815
E-MAIL
[email protected]
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5: Relating to Marriage
SUMMARY
Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 5
expresses the intent of the Legislature to amend the
state Constitution relating to marriage equality.
BACKGROUND
In November 2008, 52 percent of Californians voted in
favor of Proposition 8, which amended the state
constitution to state “only marriage between a man
and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
In August 2010, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn
Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional
under the due process and equal protection clauses
of the Fourt eenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. In February 2012, the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals continued to uphold both of the
federal judges’ rulings, and finally the case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court . On June 26, 2013, the
Supreme Court ruled that the appellants in Proposition
8 did not have standing to bring the case, effectively
nullifying the amendment.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in
Obergefell v. Hodges , that stat e bans on same -sex
marriage, as well as bans on recognizing same -sex
marriages performed in other jurisdictions, were
unconstitutional. The Court’s 5 -4 ruling cited the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Consti tution. The
decision resulted in marriage equality at the federal
level.
PROBLEM
Last year , the U.S. Supreme Court published its
decision in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s
Health Organization , which overturned the Court’s
previous rulings in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned
Parenthood of Pennsylvania. Justice Clarence
Thomas alluded to the decision’s potential
implications for marriage as well , stating in his
concurrence to the decision, that the Court “should
reconsider all of [its] substantive due process
precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and
Obergefell. Because any substantive due process
decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty
to ‘correct the error’ established in those
precedents…”
If the Supreme Court rules to overturn the precedents
set in Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriage could
potentially be put at risk in the state of California.
While Hollingsworth v. Perry nullified the section of the California Constitution stating marriage to be only
valid and recognized when between man and woman,
that section of the Constitution still remains and could be re -applied should the Supreme Court revisit and
reverse its previous ruling.
SOLUTION
ACA 5 would express the intent of the Legislature to
amend the Constitution of the State relating to
marriage equality. As a leader on LGBTQ+ rights and
inclusivity for the rest of the country, it is California’s duty to ensure that the tens of thousands of LGBTQ+
Californians who are married are protected and that
the right to marry remains available to all Californians, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender
identity.