Proposition 3 in California has sparked intense debate. Its main focus is the issue of marriage equality, but beyond the flags of social progress, it raises deeper concerns about the fundamental values ​​and meaning of marriage in our society. While many see this proposition as a necessary step to ensure equality and protect the rights of same-sex couples, others fear that amending the Constitution to this end could have broader, disruptive implications for the institution of marriage.

Marriage equality has been a legal reality in the United States since the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. However, in California, the state Constitution still maintains language banning same-sex marriage, a trace of Proposition 8 that was passed in 2008 and subsequently struck down in court. Supporters of Proposition 3 argue that this measure is necessary to align the Constitution with current legal realities and proactively protect the rights of same-sex couples at a time when fundamental rights are being challenged in other states.

From this perspective, Proposition 3 seems like a matter of social justice. Advocates point out that the current language in the California Constitution is a holdover from an earlier era, a symbol of discrimination that no longer reflects the inclusive values ​​that many Californians support. They further warn that constitutional protection of these rights should not be taken lightly, given the growing number of attacks on LGBTQ+ rights in various parts of the country. According to its proponents, California must act as a bastion of equality and freedom, and to do so, the Constitution must reflect these principles.

However, those who oppose Proposition 3 also make arguments that should not be dismissed. They argue that while marriage equality is already legal, altering the Constitution to reflect this is not only unnecessary, but potentially dangerous. They say the proposal goes far beyond simply protecting the rights of same-sex couples and that by opening up the constitutional definition of marriage, it risks eliminating all existing protections for this institution.

One of the key points of the opponents is that by redefining marriage as a “fundamental right” without restrictions, important limits could be eroded as to who can marry. They fear that the ambiguity in the wording of Proposition 3 could allow marriages between children, close relatives or even open the door to polygamy. These opponents argue that while it is important to guarantee equality, it is also important to preserve the legal parameters that protect vulnerable individuals, such as children, from situations of exploitation or abuse. In addition, there is deep concern about the impact that this measure could have on the traditional family structure. For years, numerous studies have shown that children benefit from growing up in homes with a mother and a father, and opponents of Prop 3 argue that by redefining marriage, the measure suggests that this family structure is irrelevant. This, they argue, goes against evidence that children thrive best in an environment with both biological parents present and engaged.

This argument strikes a raw nerve in many sectors of society, especially among those who identify with more conservative or traditional values. For these Californians, marriage is not just a legal institution, but a cultural and moral pillar. Changing the Constitution to redefine marriage without taking these values ​​into account is perceived as an erosion of your beliefs and an imposition of an agenda that does not represent everyone.

It is crucial to recognize that the California Constitution is a document designed to protect the rights of all citizens, not just one group or another. Altering it is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly. Proposition 3, in its eagerness to correct what some see as an injustice, risks further dividing the population by forcing a new definition of marriage that is not shared by everyone. Rather than unifying society around the principles of equality and justice, it could intensify cultural and political tensions.

Therefore, the most prudent approach would be to vote No on Proposition 3. The law already protects the rights of same-sex couples to marry, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling, and there is no immediate need to change the Constitution to reflect something that is already legally binding. Amending the Constitution should be a step reserved for issues where there is broad consensus and a clear need to do so, not for issues that still deeply divide society.

Instead of amending the Constitution, we should focus on fostering respectful dialogue between the different factions of our society. Recognizing the valid concerns of those who value traditional marriage, while defending the rights of all citizens, is the path to a more inclusive and less polarized future.

Voting No on Proposition 3 does not mean opposing marriage equality, but rather protecting the Constitution from unnecessary and potentially dangerous changes that could have unintended consequences for the future of our institutions.

EDITOR’S NOTE:

Dear readers, this article is crucial in combating the extremists who distort the history of the Conquest. They have fostered resentment towards our Spanish brothers, almost turning it into hatred. It is vital to remember the truth of what happened, as history is full of nuances that deserve recognition. Vale, Marvin Ramírez.

Dear President Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum, we would like to clarify a few points:

No, Tenochtitlan was not founded almost two centuries ago; Tenochtitlan is approximately seven centuries old. It is at least surprising that we have to explain this from Spain to an entire president of Mexico.

In 1839, the highest authorities of Mexico and Spain signed a treaty of peace and friendship, swearing to forget forever any grievances between the two countries. You are not only being untruthful in your statement, but you are also breaking the promise made by the Government of Mexico at that time.

When Spain left Mexico, this country was much larger, richer, and more populated than the United States. The current situation in Mexico is in no way the responsibility of the Kingdom of Spain.

Mexico was not of Spain; it was Spain. Mexico was never a colony; it was a viceroyalty and very advanced for its time. For example, the University of Mexico was founded in 1551, almost a century before the first university in the United States. Spain also founded the first university in the Americas (Santo Domingo, 1538) and the first university in Asia (San Ignacio in Manila, 1590), as well as dozens of universities across the continent where both Spaniards and indigenous people could study without distinction. In fact, at the University of Salamanca in 1556, there was even a black professor.

Marriage between Spaniards and indigenous people was legal from the very beginning of the conquest. To make a comparison: in the United States, interracial marriage was not legal in all states until 1967. It is questionable for England, the United States, or the Excellency President Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum to give us lessons regarding the treatment of indigenous people.

The most optimistic estimates say that only 1.5 percent of the attackers in the final assault on Tenochtitlan were Spaniards. The rest were indigenous peoples allied with the Spaniards who had been massacred by the Mexicas for decades. It is well-known and recognized that the Spaniards wanted to preserve the city while their indigenous allies tried to raze it to the ground. It is very bold of you to speak on their behalf, President Sheinbaum, just as it is of López Obrador, who has no indigenous ancestry but does have a grandfather from Santander (Spain) and a grandmother who is the daughter of Asturians.

After the conquest of Mexico, several direct descendants of Isabel Moctezuma, daughter of Moctezuma II, moved to Spain. Many of them received noble titles in recognition of their lineage. They were received with respect and all honors. Today, more than 350 descendants of Moctezuma live in Spain. They have already “forgiven” Spain for everything they had to “forgive” centuries ago.

The most reputable historians and archaeologists have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the flowery wars were basically genocides, not to mention cannibalism and pedophilia, which were common practices in the pre-Hispanic period. It is estimated that more than 50,000 people were sacrificed at the main temple of Tenochtitlan. In fact, hundreds of skulls from child sacrifices have been found in Tzompantli in Mexico City. Andrés de Tapia, a Spanish soldier who accompanied Cortés in the conquest of Mexico in 1521, spoke of seeing a gigantic tower made entirely of the heads of men, women, and children who were sacrificed. In 2015, this tower was found in the temple of Huey Tzompantli in Mexico City. This is just one example of a brutality that has been silenced for centuries and for which no one has ever asked for forgiveness. Although honestly, we are not sure who should be asking for forgiveness, to whom, and for what. Do you see the absurdity of this?

Mexico cannot apologize to Spain for the conquest of Mexico for the simple reason that Spain and Mexico did not exist 500 years ago. Be that as it may, the descendants of the Spanish conquerors are not the Spaniards living in Spain; they are the Mexicans living in Mexico. It sounds ridiculous to have to explain something so obvious.

Since the independence of Mexico, we all know the treatment that indigenous people and indigenous languages have received. The living conditions, rights, and proportion of speakers of indigenous peoples were infinitely greater then than they are now. Do not blame the Spaniards in 2024 for this.

We believe that the request for an apology from the Mexican government to the King of Spain is nothing more than a smokescreen to divert attention from more important issues. For example, in the last 10 years, an average of between 40,000 and 50,000 people are murdered in Mexico each year (and rising). Just to compare, in Spain during the same period, there are fewer than 300 murders per year (and falling). During López Obrador’s government, from December 1, 2018, to September 24, 2024, approximately 198,640 murders have been recorded.

For all the above, we support the Spanish Government’s decision not to send any representative to the inauguration of Claudia Sheinbaum, and we suggest to all Spaniards and to all neighbors and allies of the European Union that they consider choosing other destinations for their vacations and investments in the coming years if this woman remains in government in Mexico. It is unfortunate that a brotherly people like the Mexicans allow their president to humiliate the head of the Spanish State in this way, a friendly and allied country.