California Proposition 22, Definition of Marriage Initiative (March 2000)

California Proposition 22
Election date March 7, 2000
Topic Marriage and family
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 22 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on March 7, 2000. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported defining marriage between a man and a woman in the California Family Code.

A "no" vote opposed defining marriage between a man and a woman in the California Family Code.

Election results

California Proposition 22
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		4,618,673	61.35%
No		2,909,370	38.65%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did this initiative do?

This initiative changed the California Family Code to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Aftermath

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court struck down the initiative in a 4-3 decision, giving same-sex couples the right to marry.

Shortly before the court struck down Proposition 22, California Proposition 8 (2008) qualified for the ballot. The goal of Proposition 8's supporters was similar to the goals of Proposition 22 supporters. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution, whereas Proposition 22 was a state statute. Proposition 8 went on to win at the polls in November 2008.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 22 was as follows:

“

Limit on Marriages. Initiative Statute. Adds a provision to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 22. That estimate was:

“

Probably no fiscal effect on the state or local governments.

”

Support

Yes on Knight led the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Sen. John McCain (R)

Political Parties

• Republican Party of California

Arguments

• Robert Glazier, representative of the Yes on Knight campaign: "This simply closes a loophole so that we don't have to recognize marriage from another state with a definition different from our own. It's a way we can protect the right to determine for ourselves how we will define the institution of marriage in our state, which we feel should be between men and women."

Official arguments

• Jeanne Murray, field director, 60 Plus Association; Gary Beckner, executive director, Association of American Educators; and Thomas Fong, president, Chinese Family Alliance (California Voter Guide): Dear Fellow Voter: I'm a 20-year-old woman voting for only the second time on March 7th. I'm proud, excited, and a bit nervous, because I take my civic responsibilities seriously. Not only that, but among millions of people supporting Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative, I have the honor of writing you to explain why Californians should vote "Yes" on 22. Proposition 22 is exactly 14 words long: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That's it! No legal doubletalk, no hidden agenda. Just common sense: Marriage should be between a man and a woman. It does not take away anyone's right to inheritance or hospital visitation. When people ask, "Why is this necessary?" I say that even though California law already says only a man and a woman may marry, it also recognizes marriages from other states. However, judges in some of those states want to define marriage differently than we do. If they succeed, California may have to recognize new kinds of marriages, even though most people believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. California is not alone in trying to keep marriage between a man and a woman. In 1996, Democrats and Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill saying that the U.S. government defines marriage as between a man and a woman only, and said each state could do the same. President Clinton signed the bill the day after he received it. So far, 30 states have passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Now it's our turn, and I'm voting "Yes" on 22 to ensure that decisions affecting California are voted on by Californians . . . like us. It's Our State, it should be Our Choice. But some people today think marriage doesn't matter anymore. They say I have to accept that marriage can mean whatever anyone says it means, and if I don't agree then I'm out of touch, even an extremist. My family taught me to respect other people's freedoms. Everyone should. But that's a two way street. If people want me to respect their opinions and lifestyles, then they should grant me the same courtesy by respecting MY beliefs. And I believe that marriage should stay the way it is. It's tough enough for families to stay together these days. Why make it harder by telling children that marriage is just a word anyone can re-define again and again until it no longer has any meaning? Marriage is an important part of our lives, our families and our future. Someday I hope to meet a wonderful man, marry and have children of my own. By voting "Yes" on 22, I'm doing my part today to keep that dream alive. Please, for all future generations, vote "Yes" on 22. Miriam G. Santacruz We couldn't have said it better! As representatives of seniors, teachers and parents, we're proud to join Californians from all walks of life voting "Yes" on 22.

Opposition

No on Knight led the campaign in opposition to the initiative.

Opponents

Officials

• Vice President Al Gore (D)
• U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D)
• U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)
• California Gov. Gray Davis (D)

Unions

• California Teachers Association

Organizations

• League of Women Voters of California

Arguments

• Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights: "At its best, Prop. 22 is unnecessary. Given that there is no state in which lesbian or gay couples can marry and there's no imminent possibility of that happening, you have to ask yourself what's really going on here. Other states have used similar statutes as justification to roll back, block or repeal domestic partner protections or other civil rights for gay and lesbian families."
• Brian Perry, former head of the Log Cabin Republicans: "What Republicans against 22 stand for is a true conservative ideology, which says government should stay out of my wallet, off my back and away from my bedroom. I don't think the issue is playing out as a partisan issue. It's more of an individual issue and neither party is uniformly for or opposed to 22."

Official arguments

• Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Assembly Speaker, California State Legislature; the Right Reverend William E. Swing, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California; Krys Wulff, president, American Association of University Women, California (California Voter Guide): The California Interfaith Alliance The League of Women Voters of California The California Teachers Association Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Barbara Boxer Congressman Tom Campbell Vice President Al Gore Senator Bill Bradley The California Republican League And thousands of husbands, wives, mothers and fathers from across California oppose Proposition 22. THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSITION 22 IS NOT TO BAN MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES IN CALIFORNIA. IT IS ALREADY BANNED. You don't need to support marriage for gay and lesbian couples to oppose Proposition 22, the "Knight Initiative". You just have to believe in a few basic values--keeping government out of our personal lives, respecting each other's privacy, and not singling out one group for discrimination or for special rights. VOTING NO ON 22 WILL NOT LEGALIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, NO MATTER WHAT THE SUPPORTERS OF PROPOSITION 22 SAY. The real purpose is to use Proposition 22 as a tool in court to deny basic civil rights to lesbians and gays and their families. Proposition 22 will be used, as similar laws have been in other states, to deny the right of partners to visit their sick or injured companion in hospitals, to deny the right to inheritance, and even to deny the right of a remaining companion to live in their home. PROPOSITION 22 WILL RESULT IN UNNECESSARY GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. Whether we think homosexuality is right or wrong, we should stay out of other people's private lives and let people make their own decisions about moral values and commitments. Californians treasure our right to be left alone and to lead our lives the way we wish. Adding more laws about private behavior and personal relationships isn't a solution to anything. PROPOSITION 22 DIVIDES US. Californians have seen too many efforts in recent years to pick on specific groups of people and single them out for discrimination. Supporters of Proposition 22 are spending millions of dollars to convince you that basic rights should be denied to a group of Californians. They want us to believe that attacking same-gender couples will solve problems instead of causing them. But we've seen what spreading fear and hatred has already done. According to the Attorney General, more than 2,000 Californians were victimized by hate crimes last year alone. California has had enough of the politics of fear and hate. Voting "No" on 22 will send that message. PROPOSITION 22 IS UNFAIR. Even when gay or lesbian couples have been together for many years, one companion often has no right to visit a sick or injured companion in the hospital. They often can't get basic health insurance for dependents. They have no inheritance rights. That's wrong. And Proposition 22 will make it more difficult to right this wrong--by singling out lesbians and gays for discrimination. Proposition 22 doesn't solve any problems . . . It adds more government interference to our lives . . . It singles out one group for attack . . . It tears us apart instead of bringing us together. VOTE NO ON 22.

Path to the ballot

Process in California

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

An initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are 21 states that allow citizens to initiate state statutes, including 14 that provide for direct initiatives and nine (9) that provide for indirect initiatives (two provide for both). An indirect initiated state statute goes to the legislature after a successful signature drive. The legislatures in these states have the option of approving the initiative itself, rather than the initiative appearing on the ballot.

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval.

Stages of this ballot initiative

The initiative was proposed by State Sen. William J. Knight (R) and was referred to as the Knight Initiative.

See also

2000 Measures

• 2000 Measures
• Family-related policy on the ballot
• 2000 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Official Voter Guide
• Full text of Proposition 22
• Official declaration of the March 7, 2000 vote
• Smart Voter on Proposition 22
• Cal Voter on Prop 22
• Top Ten contributors
• California 2000 Primary Statement of the Vote