2000 California Proposition 22

Proposition 22

March 7, 2000
Limit on Marriage
Results
Choice Votes % For 4,618,673 61.35% Against 2,909,370 38.65% Valid votes 7,528,043 95.51% Invalid or blank votes 353,956 4.49% Total votes 7,881,999 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 14,631,805 51.45%
Yes   50%–60%   60%–70%   70%–80%   80%–90% No   50%–60%   60%–70%
Source:[1]

Elections in California
Federal government U.S. President 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Dem Rep 2000 Dem Rep 2004 Dem Rep 2008 Dem Rep 2012 Dem Rep 2016 Dem Rep 2020 Dem Rep 2024 Dem Rep U.S. Senate 1849 1850 1852 sp 1856 1857 sp 1860 1860 sp 1868 1872 1873 1873 sp 1878 1880 1885 1886 sp 1887 1891 1891 sp 1893 1895 sp 1897 1900 sp 1903 1905 1909 1911 1914 1916 1920 1922 1926 1928 1932 1934 1938 1940 1944 1946 1946 sp 1950 1952 1954 sp 1956 1958 1962 1964 1968 1970 1974 1976 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 sp 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 2022 2022 sp 2024 2024 sp 2028 U.S. House of Representatives 1849 1851 1852 1854 1856 1859 1861 1863 1864 1867 1868 1871 1872 1875 1876 1879 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1987 5th sp 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 32nd sp 2002 2004 2005 5th sp 48th sp 2006 50th sp 2007 36th sp 2008 12th sp 2009 10th sp 32nd sp 2010 2011 36th sp 2012 2014 2016 2017 34th sp 2018 2020 25th sp 2022 22nd sp 2024 16th 20th sp 30th 45th 47th v t e
State government Executive Governor 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 2021 (recall) 2022 2026 Lieutenant governor 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 Attorney general 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Secretary of state 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Treasurer 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Controller 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Insurance commissioner 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Superintendent 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Board of equalization 2018 2022 Legislature Senate 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Special Assembly 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 (79th sp) 2022 (17th sp) 2024 Special Judiciary Court of appeals 1994 1998 2002 2006 Elections by year 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2012 Jun Nov 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 v t e
State propositions 1910–1919 1911 4 7 8 1960–1969 1964 14 1970–1979 1978 6 8 13 1980–1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990–1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000–2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010–2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 1 2 41 42 45 46 47 48 2016 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 2018 68 69 70 71 72 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020–2029 2020 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2022 1 26 27 28 29 30 31 2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 32 33 34 35 36 Full list v t e
Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Board of supervisors 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Ballot measures 1980 A 2008 R 2012 B J 2016 M Elections 2020 2022 2024 Los Angeles Mayor 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (sp) 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2022 City attorney 2009 Ballot measures 1986 U 2017 S Elections 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 (sp) 2020 2022 2023 (sp) 2024 Long Beach Mayor 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 v t e
Orange County Orange County Board of supervisors 2018 2020 2022 2024 District attorney 2018 Anaheim Mayor 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Irvine Mayor 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Costa Mesa Municipal 1947 1953 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 v t e
Sacramento Mayor 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 v t e
San Diego County San Diego County Board of supervisors 2020 San Diego Mayor 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 1932 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (sp) 1984 1986 (sp) 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2005 (sp) 2008 2012 2013–14 (sp) 2016 2020 2024 City attorney 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 City council 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Special v t e
San Francisco Mayor 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1931 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (recall) 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2018 (sp) 2019 2024 District attorney 2019 2022 (recall) 2022 (sp) 2024 Board of supervisors 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Board of education 2018 2022 (recall) Ballot measures 2024 G Elections 2004 Mar Nov 2005 2006 Jun Nov 2007 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2011 2012 Jun Nov 2013 2022 Feb v t e
San Jose Mayor 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2024 v t e
Other localities Bakersfield Mayoral elections: 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Fresno Mayoral elections: 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Oakland Mayoral elections: 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2024 Riverside Mayoral elections: 1997 2001 2005 2009 2012 2016 2020 2024 San Bernardino Mayoral elections: 2005 2009 2014 2018 2022 Stockton Mayoral elections: 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 v t e
v t e

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]

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]

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.

Proposition 22

Choice	Votes	%
Yes	4,618,673	61.40
No	2,909,370	38.60
Valid votes	7,528,043	95.51
Invalid or blank votes	353,956	4.49
Total votes	7,881,999	100.00
Registered voters/turnout	14,631,805	53.87
Source: March 2000 Complete Statement of Vote

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]

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]

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]

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]

• Proposition 8
• Domestic partnership in California
• Same-sex marriage in California
• Same-sex marriage in the United States
• U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions
• Defense of Marriage Act (U.S.)
• Federal Marriage Amendment
• Marriage Protection Act of 2007
• LGBT movements in the United States
• William "Pete" Knight
• David Lane (activist)