2000 California Proposition 22

Last updated

Proposition 22
Flag of California.svg
March 7, 2000
Limit on Marriage
Results
Choice
Votes %
For4,618,67361.35%
Against2,909,37038.65%
Valid votes7,528,04395.51%
Invalid or blank votes353,9564.49%
Total votes7,881,999100.00%
Registered voters/turnout14,631,80551.45%
2000 California Proposition 22 results map by county.svg
Source: [1]

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. In November 2008, Proposition 8 was also passed by voters, again only allowing marriage between one man and one woman. The Act was proposed by means of the initiative process. It was authored by state Senator William "Pete" Knight and is known informally as the Knight initiative. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000, with 61% in favor to 39% against. [2] The margin of victory surprised many, since a Field Poll immediately prior to the election estimated support at 53%, with 40% against and 7% undecided. [3]

Contents

The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution, as happened on May 15, 2008, when the state supreme court, ruling in In re Marriage Cases , declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. [4] This 4–3 decision invalidated Proposition 22 and some related California laws.

Proposition 22 provoked debate long after its passage. In November 2008, California voters overturned the In re Marriage Cases decision by approving an amendment of the state constitution called Proposition 8. In June 2010, Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional by U.S. district judge Vaughn Walker based on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. [5] In June 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry ruled that the Intervenor-Defendants had no Article III standing to appeal Walker's ruling, keeping Proposition 8 unenforceable throughout California and enabling same-sex marriage to resume just two days after the decision. [6]

Statutory framework

Prior to 1977, marriage was defined in Section 4100 of the California Civil Code. This stated that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary". [7] While related sections of the law made references to sex, a State Assembly committee that was debating adding sex-specific terms to this section in 1977 noted: "Under existing law it is not clear whether partners of the same sex can get married". [8] That year, the legislature amended the legal definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity. In 1992 the legal definition of marriage was moved from the Civil Code to Section 300 of the Family Code.

When Proposition 22 came before voters, marriage was defined in the Family Code as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary" [italics added]. [9] Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, Section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere. This stated that a "marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state". [10] Advocates of Proposition 22 described Section 308 as a "loophole", apparently forcing California to recognize a same-sex marriage validly contracted in some other state. [11]

To address this, Proposition 22 did not reword the existing provisions of the Family Code, but added to them the declaration that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". [12] The official citation of Proposition 22, the "California Defense of Marriage Act", is almost the same as that of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1996. This federal law had a similar purpose, and was intended to prevent any state from being obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in another state.

Results of vote

Proposition 22
ChoiceVotes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes4,618,67361.40
No2,909,37038.60
Valid votes7,528,04395.51
Invalid or blank votes353,9564.49
Total votes7,881,999100.00
Registered voters/turnout14,631,80553.87
Source: March 2000 Complete Statement of Vote

Disputes over its effect

Central to many subsequent disputes over Prop 22's effect is a distinction between statutes enacted by the legislature and initiative statutes enacted directly by the electorate. The legislature is free to amend or rescind its own enactments, but voters must approve any attempt by the legislature to amend or repeal an initiative statute unless the initiative itself states otherwise. [13]

Controversy over domestic partnerships

In 1999, California enacted the first in a series of domestic partnership provisions. California courts have entertained several challenges to legislative expansions of the domestic partnership scheme enacted after Prop 22. Generally, these challenges alleged that the legislature inappropriately amended Prop 22 by making California's domestic partnership scheme too similar to marriage, or more broadly, that Prop 22 made 'any' subsequent recognition of same-sex partnerships beyond the legislature's inherent power. California Courts of Appeal rejected those claims, noting that domestic partnerships already existed as a legal institution separate from marriage at the time Prop 22 was enacted. [14] [15]

Controversy over marriage licensing within California

In September 2005, the California legislature passed a bill, A.B. 849, eliminating the gender requirements for marriage now found in Family Code section 300. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. In his veto message, [16] Schwarzenegger argued that passing a law that would implicitly repeal Section 308.5 required the assent of the electorate (and separately made note of pending court challenges). [17] In ruling on the disputes between Prop 22 and the domestic partnership enactments, California Courts of Appeal have reached differing conclusions as to Prop 22's scope within the marriage statutes.

In Armijo v. Miles, the Second Appellate District Distinguished Prop 22 from the case at bar by noting, in part, that the initiative prevented the recognition of same-sex marriages conducted outside California:

The legislative analysis and the ballot arguments readily demonstrate that Proposition 22 was crafted with a prophylactic purpose in mind. It was designed to prevent same-sex couples who could marry validly in other countries or who in the future could marry validly in other states from coming to California and claiming, in reliance on Family Code section 308, that their marriages must be recognized as valid marriages. With the passage of Proposition 22, then, only opposite-sex marriages validly contracted outside this state will be recognized as valid in California. [18]

The Armijo court may not have ruled that the historical purpose of Prop 22 limited its scope to out of state marriages. The court appears to have ultimately presumed that Proposition 22 did indeed apply to in-state arrangements deemed to be "marriages," but held that the challenged wrongful death statute did not violate that prohibition:

The question remaining is whether the portion of AB 2580 that amends the wrongful death statute subverts Proposition 22. Defendants' position that it does is based on the faulty premise that the right to sue for wrongful death is an exclusive benefit of marriage. It is not.

Less than a week later, on April 4, 2005, the Third Appellate District ruled more explicitly, in Knight v. Superior Court, that Prop 22 also included within the initiative's ambit marriages licensed within the state:

The plain language of Proposition 22 and its initiative statute, section 308.5, reaffirms the definition of marriage in section 300, by stating that only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid and recognized in California. This limitation ensures that California will not legitimize or recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, as it otherwise would be required to do pursuant to section 308, and that California will not permit same-sex partners to validly marry within the state. [19]

As with Armijo, the Knight court upheld the challenged statute on the grounds that it did not constitute a "marriage" for purposes of Prop 22 or Section 300. The cases differed, however, in that Armijo appeared to rely on a narrow observation that a particular benefit was not exclusive to marriage, while Knight upheld a broad domestic partnership statute against challenges it left almost no substantive difference between the two institutions. Parties in subsequent cases, including the same-sex marriage cases, have noted the apparent split between the appellate courts with respect to its scope.

As the ultimate rulings in these cases arguably did not require a finding that Prop 22 applies to in-state marriages (both were upheld against a challenge that they constituted marriage under Prop 22, the same result that would have obtained if they had ruled Prop 22 did not apply to in-state marriages), some argue that these findings are dicta. [20] [21] [22] On the flip side, an argument can be made that these holdings are not dicta, as both courts ruled on the merits of whether or not a challenged in-state arrangement constituted a "marriage" for purposes of Prop 22, an allegation that would be moot if either court believed Prop 22 permitted in-state marriages. In 2008, the California Supreme Court resolved the controversy in ruling on the constitutionality of statutes limiting marriage to a man and a woman: "this provision reasonably must be interpreted to apply both to marriages performed in California and those performed in other jurisdictions." [23]

Invalidation

Separately, numerous challenges to the constitutionality of the opposite-sex requirements found in California's marriage statutes, including Prop 22, came before the courts. A San Francisco trial court threw out all of the gender requirements on state constitutional grounds. On appeal, an intermediate court reversed that decision. In December 2006, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to review all six cases and held oral argument on March 4, 2008, consolidating the cases as In re Marriage Cases . [24] The Court ruled on May 15, 2008, that Proposition 22 violated the state Constitution and was therefore invalid. [25] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately issued a statement pledging to uphold the ruling, and repeated his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment initiative that would override the Court's ruling and again ban same sex marriages by placing the text of Proposition 22 in the State Constitution. [26] Proposition 22 has been officially repealed, effective January 1, 2015. Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1306 on July 7, 2014. [27] [28] [29]

See also

Related Research Articles

Same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June 28, 2013. The State of California first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples from June 16, 2008 to November 5, 2008, a period of approximately 4 months, 2 weeks and 6 days, as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship, analogous to marriage, created in 1999 to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. It was extended to all opposite-sex couples as of January 1, 2016 and by January 1, 2020 to include new votes that updated SB-30 with more benefits and rights to California couples choosing domestic partnership before their wedding. California Governor Newsom signed into law on July 30, 2019.

Richard A. Kramer is a judge serving on the San Francisco County Superior Court. He is most known for his 2005 ruling striking down Proposition 22, a California ballot initiative defining marriage as only valid when between a man and a woman.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Arizona Proposition 107</span> Failed referendum on a statewide same-sex marriage ban

Arizona Proposition 107 was a proposed same-sex marriage ban, put before voters by ballot initiative in the 2006 general election. If passed, it would have prohibited the U.S. state of Arizona from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The state already had a statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California Proposition 36</span>

California Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, was an initiative statute that permanently changed state law to allow qualifying defendants convicted of non-violent drug possession offenses to receive a probationary sentence in lieu of incarceration. As a condition of probation defendants are required to participate in and complete a licensed and/or certified community drug treatment program. If the defendant fails to complete this program or violates any other term or condition of their probation, then probation can be revoked and the defendant may be required to serve an additional sentence which may include incarceration. The proposition was passed with 6,233,422 (60.86%) votes in favor and 4,009,508 (39.14%) against on November 7, 2000 and went into effect on July 1, 2001 with $120 million for treatment services allocated annually for five years. The act is codified in sections 1210 and 3063.1 of the California Penal Code and Division 10.8 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Proposition 83 of 2006 was a statute enacted by 70% of California voters on November 7, 2006, authored by State Senator George Runner and State Assemblywoman Sharon Runner. It was proposed by means of the initiative process as a version of the Jessica's Law proposals that had been considered in other states.

Common-law marriage, also known as sui juris marriage, informal marriage, marriage by habit and repute, or marriage in fact is a form of irregular marriage that survives only in seven U.S. states and the District of Columbia along with some provisions of military law; plus two other states that recognize domestic common law marriage after the fact for limited purposes.

In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Successful referendum on banning same-sex marriage

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Arizona Proposition 102</span> Successful referendum on an amendment banning same-sex marriage

Arizona Proposition 102 was an amendment to the constitution of the U.S. state of Arizona adopted by a ballot measure held in 2008. It added Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution, which says: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." The amendment added a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to existing statutory bans in place since 1996. In October 2014, Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution was struck down as unconstitutional in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and is no longer enforced by the state of Arizona, which now allows and recognizes same-sex marriages.

The recorded history of marriage in California is long and encompasses a period as far back as the first Spanish missions and even further back in unrecorded history of Indigenous Californians and their marriage history.

Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage. Several gay couples and governmental entities filed the lawsuits in California state trial courts. The Supreme Court of California agreed to hear appeals in three of the cases and consolidated them so they would be considered and decided. The supreme court heard oral argument in the cases in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that the cases will set precedent in California because "no previous case had presented the question of whether [a ballot] initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Arizona since October 17, 2014. The U.S. state had denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1996 and by an amendment to its State Constitution approved by voters in 2008. On October 17, Judge John W. Sedwick ruled in two lawsuits that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from enforcing its ban, effective immediately. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state would not appeal that ruling, and instructed county clerks to comply and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Foundation for Equal Rights</span> American nonprofit organization

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) was a nonprofit organization active in the United States from 2009 through 2015. The organization was established to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in California</span>

California is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights, which have received nationwide recognition since the 1970s. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1976. Discrimination protections regarding sexual orientation and gender identity or expression were adopted statewide in 2003. Transgender people are also permitted to change their legal gender on official documents without any medical interventions, and mental health providers are prohibited from engaging in conversion therapy on minors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ProtectMarriage.com</span>

ProtectMarriage.com was a collection of conservative and religious American political activist groups aligned in opposition to same-sex marriage. The coalition's stated goal is to "defend and restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman." Beginning in 2001 as Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund holding the domain name protectmarriage.com, the organization reformed in 2005 as a coalition to sponsor California Proposition 8, called the California Marriage Protection Act, and was successful in placing it on the ballot in 2008. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution, putting a halt to same-sex marriages in California for nearly two years until the proposition was overturned as unconstitutional. While it was in effect, ProtectMarriage.com defended the amendment in a series of legal challenges. Ron Prentice is the executive director.

This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.

The U.S. state of Texas issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognizes those marriages when performed out-of-state. On June 26, 2015, the United States legalized same-sex marriage nationwide due to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Article 1, Section 32, of the Texas Constitution provided that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman," and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." This amendment and all related statutes have been ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable. Some cities and counties in the state recognize both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships.

References

  1. ↑ Primary Elections - Statement of Vote, March 7, 2000
  2. ↑ "Vote2000 - California Primary Election". June 2, 2000. Archived from the original on April 1, 2004. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  3. ↑ Nieves, Evelyn (February 25, 2000). "Ballot Initiative That Would Thwart Gay Marriage Is Embroiling California". The New York Times. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  4. ↑ "In re MARRIAGE CASES S147999" (PDF). Los Angeles Times . May 15, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 29, 2008. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  5. ↑ "L.A. Now". Los Angeles Times. August 4, 2010.
  6. ↑ "Gay Marriages To Resume In California As Prop 8 Hold Lifted By Appeals Court". Huffington Post. June 28, 2013.
  7. ↑ Calif. Civil Code section 4100 prior to 1977:Stats. 1969, ch. 1608, s. 8, p. 3314; amended to incorporate explicit gender requirement:Calif. Stats. 1977, ch. 339, s. 1, p. 1295; recodified at Calif. Family Code section 300 without substantive change:Calif. Stats. 1992, ch.162 s. 10, p. 474
  8. ↑ California Assembly Committee on the Judiciary, Bill Digest for A.B. 607 (1977)
  9. ↑ "Family Code Section 300-310". Legal Info. Archived from the original on June 30, 2016. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  10. ↑ "Section 308". Archived from the original on June 30, 2016. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  11. ↑ "Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 22". Archived from the original on December 9, 2006.
  12. ↑ "Text of Proposition 22". Archived from the original on March 21, 2004. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  13. ↑ "California Constitution Article II". Archived from the original on October 8, 2010. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  14. ↑ "Knight v. Arnold Schwarznegger, as Governor, etc., et al., Real Parties in Interest" (PDF). FindLaw. April 4, 2005. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  15. ↑ "Armijo v. Miles" (PDF). FindLaw. March 30, 2005. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  16. ↑ "AB 43 Assembly Bill - Veto". www.leginfo.ca.gov. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  17. ↑ "Documents associated with A.B. 849 in this Session". Legal Info. Archived from the original on January 11, 2012. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  18. ↑ Armijo v. Miles (2005) 127 Cal. App.4th 1405, 1424
  19. ↑ Knight v. Superior Court (Schwarzenegger) (2005) 128 Cal. App.4th 14, 23–24
  20. ↑ "Civil Rights: Equal Marriage Rights". April 26, 2005. Archived from the original on September 24, 2006. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  21. ↑ Dolan, Maura (September 7, 2005). "Courts Likely to Have Final Say on Gay-Marriage Bill". UCLA. Archived from the original on September 12, 2006. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  22. ↑ Kroll, Panda (October 2005). "California's Same-Sex Marriage Yo-Yo" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 5, 2006. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  23. ↑ "Opinion In re Marriage Cases" (PDF). Supreme Court of California. May 15, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 3, 2008. Retrieved June 5, 2008.
  24. ↑ "California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information". appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov.
  25. ↑ Egelko, Bob (May 16, 2008). "State's Top Court Strikes Down Marriage Ban". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  26. ↑ "Schwarzenegger says he respects court's marriage ruling". San Francisco Chronicle. May 15, 2008. Archived from the original on May 19, 2008. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  27. ↑ "SB 1306 - California 2013-2014 Regular Session - Open States". Open States.
  28. ↑ "California governor signs bill to update state's marriage laws". LGBTQ Nation. Associated Press. July 7, 2014. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
  29. ↑ "California Governor Signs Bill Recognizing Legal Gay Marriage". KPBS. July 7, 2014. Retrieved September 28, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.