Of course, I know about this measure as it's on my ballot. Still, to have it on there means certain people can display their ugliness again, even if there's little danger it wouldn't pass. However, it's not anything really being focused on over the airwaves or internet here.
I had to read the article posted above because I thought the first line was odd: "In practice, Prop 3 would not change who can marry, it would only change the language of the California Constitution that still only acknowledges marriage between a man and a woman."
"In practice" it wouldn't change who can marry? Whenever "in practice" is in a sentence it can often mean, or signifies, well in this case, it would mean that it could change who can marry in some other way. I think it's just an unfortunate phrasing, because there's nothing else in the article to denote different.