| ||||||||||||||||
Constitutional Right to Marry Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. | ||||||||||||||||
as of 5:12 P.M., November 15, 2024 PT | ||||||||||||||||
Results | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Source: California Secretary of State [1] [2] |
Elections in California |
---|
Proposition 3, titled Constitutional Right to Marry, was a California ballot proposition and legislative statutes that passed by vote on in the 2024 general election on November 5, 2024. [3] [4] The proposition repealed Proposition 8 passed during the 2008 general election and amend the state constitution to declare that the "right to marry is a fundamental right". It also ensured that same-sex couples would have the right to marry in California in case the United States Supreme Court ever withdraws that federal right. [5] [6]
The proposition amended Article I, Section 7.5 of the Constitution of California to read:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.(a) The right to marry is a fundamental right. (b) This section is in furtherance of both of the following: (1) The inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy guaranteed by Section 1. (2) The rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed by Section 7."
On November 5, 2024, at 8:00 PM PT, polls in California closed. On the same night, at 10:30 PM PT, with 74.93% of votes counted, the Associated Press projected, with 61.6% in favor, the passage of Proposition 3. [7]
Supporters of the proposition argued that "although marriage equality for same-sex couples has been the law of the land in the United States for years, California’s Constitution still says that same-sex couples are not allowed to marry [and that] recent threats against fundamental rights have made it clear California must be proactive in protecting the freedom to marry regardless of gender or race"
Opponents of the proposition argued that it "removes ALL protections on marriage, including limits on children, close relatives, and three or more people marrying each other" as well as "[overriding] all laws on marriage [and a] 'fundamental right' to marry [meaning] it would remove protections against child marriages, incest, and polygamy" and that "changing the definition of marriage, this measure also suggests that children don’t need both a mom and a dad [as Prop 3] goes against years of research showing that kids do best when raised by their mother and father in a stable, married home [and that] children without a mother or father are more likely to have emotional issues, take part in risky behaviors, struggle in school, and face financial problems."
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the table should be formatted more similarly to polling data tables on other similar referendum pages.(November 2024) |
Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size | In favor | Against | Undecided | Margin | Margin of Error |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
October 2024 [20] | Public Policy Institute of California | 67% | 32% | 35% pro | |||
September 2024 [21] | Public Policy Institute of California | 68% | 31% | 37% pro | |||
January 21, 2023 - January 29, 2024 [22] | University of Southern California | 1,416 | 73% | 20% | 7% | 53% pro | ±4% |
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. 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.
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.
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.
Proposition 2 was a referendum for a state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Texas legislature and approved by the voters at the November 8, 2005 general election. The measure added a new provision to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides 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." Texas thus became the nineteenth US state to adopt constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the most populous state to adopt a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage until California passed its ban in November 2008. The amendment was later invalidated in June 2015 after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, though the amendment remains in the Texas Constitution.
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.
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.
The California state elections, November 2008 were held on November 4, 2008 throughout California. Among the elections taking place were those for the office of President of the United States, all the seats of California's delegation to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all of the odd-numbered seats of the State Senate. Twelve propositions also appeared on the ballot. Numerous local elections also took place throughout the state.
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.
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".
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.
Love Honor Cherish or LHC is a Los-Angeles based, non-profit, civil rights organization that advocates for the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry in California and the repeal of Proposition 8 at the November 2, 2010 general election.
8 is a 2011 American play that portrays the closing arguments of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a federal trial that led to the overturn of Proposition 8, an amendment banning same-sex marriages in California. It was created by Dustin Lance Black in light of the court's denial of a motion to release a video recording of the trial and to give the public a true account of what transpired in the courtroom.
Proposition 16 was a failed California ballot proposition that appeared on the November 3, 2020, general election ballot, asking California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Proposition 209 (1996). Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of race- and gender-based affirmative action in California's public sector and public university admissions.
The 2020 California Proposition 17 is a ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections on November 3. Prop 17 amended the Constitution of California to allow people who are on parole to vote. Due to the passage of this proposition, more than 50,000 people in California who are currently on parole and have completed their prison sentence are now eligible to vote and to run for public office. This proposition also provides that all those on parole in the future will be allowed to vote and run for public office as well. The work of Proposition 17 comes out of a history of addressing felony disenfranchisement in the United States. California voters approved this measured by a margin of roughly 18 percentage points.
The 2020 California Proposition 18 would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they will turn 18 by the subsequent general election.
Elections in the U.S. state of California took place on November 5, 2024, with the statewide direct primary election being held on March 5, 2024.
Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), was a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted on in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to codify the right. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision reversed judicial precedent that previously held that the United States Constitution protected the right to an abortion.
2024 Colorado Amendment J is an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that appeared on the general election ballot on November 5, 2024, in Colorado. As it passed, the amendment repealed Amendment 43, a 2006 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the Constitution of Colorado. While Constitutional ballot measures typically require a 55% vote to pass in Colorado, Amendment J only needed a simple majority. This is because the 55% vote threshold only applies to proposed amendments adding to the Constitution, not those which repeal provisions from it.
Proposition 6, titled Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment, was a California ballot proposition and constitutional amendment that failed in the 2024 general election on November 5. The proposition, if passed, would have repealed the line "Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime" from the California Constitution, replacing it with language saying that involuntary servitude is prohibited absolutely.
A referendum on the Amendment 1 to the Constitution of Hawaii was held on 5 November 2024. The amendment repealed the Hawaii's legislature's ability to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, reversing the 1998 Hawaii Amendment 2. The voters backed the measure by 51.3% of the valid votes; it succeeded in all four of Hawaii's major counties. The wording of the ballot language proved confusing to a number of voters, who were unsure of what the amendment accomplished. The amendment passed simultaneously with similar ones in California and Colorado.