In this section learn more about the legal and legislative issues surrounding the ProtectMarriage.com Amendment, review frequently asked questions (FAQs) and read article related to protecting marriage.
Did you know…?
…that just eight years ago, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, by 61.4% of the vote, to keep marriage only between a man and a woman.
So why do we now need to amend the state constitution?
Prop 22 added a regular statute to the California Family Code (not the state constitution) to keep marriage between a man and a woman and prevent the state Legislature from redefining marriage without a vote of the people. Since then however, politicians and judges have chipped away at Prop 22 and ignored the will of the voters. For example:
An amendment to the California Constitution, which requires a vote of the people, is the only way to stop the politicians, and especially the courts, from re-defining marriage against the will of the majority of Californians.
Want to know more? Go to FAQs and get your questions answered!
History of the California Battle for Traditional Marriage
(1996 – Present)
1996
Then-Assemblyman William J. “Pete” Knight introduces legislation to protect traditional marriage in California upon learning of lawsuits seeking homosexual “marriage.” Knight’s bill passes the Assembly, but fails by one vote in the State Senate.
1997
Elected to the State Senate, Senator Knight again tries to pass legislation to protect marriage, but is stopped by then-Senator Bill Lockyer and other lawmakers supporting same-sex “marriage.”
1998
Senator Knight takes his battle to the people, leading the Protection of Marriage coalition to gather over 600,000 petition signatures and qualify Proposition 22 for the statewide ballot.
1999
The Protection of Marriage coalition begins the campaign to pass Proposition 22 in 2000.
2000
By a vote of 61.4%, Californians overwhelmingly pass Proposition 22 into law at the March 2000 election. Proposition 22 adds Section 308.5 to the Family Code, to read: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
2001-2002
In defiance of the voters’ passage of Proposition 22, state lawmakers begin passing laws to chip away at the intent of Proposition 22, by giving same-sex “domestic partners” the legal status of married spouses in various parts of California law.
2003
Just days before being voted out of office, recalled Governor Gray Davis signs AB 205 into law, to confer the full legal status of married spouses upon homosexual “domestic partners.” Senator Knight, the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund, and the Alliance Defense Fund immediately file a legal challenge against AB 205.
(Continued, over)
2004
• A Sacramento judge rejects the legal challenge against AB 205, ruling that Proposition 22 limits only the word “marriage”, but not the legal status of marriage, to a man and a woman. The ruling is appealed.
• San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom openly defies Proposition 22 by issuing nearly 4,000 illegal marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Although the State Supreme Court steps in to stop Newsom temporarily, the justices leave the door open to new legal challenges against Proposition 22.
• Several new lawsuits are filed in San Francisco to overturn Proposition 22. The cases are coordinated together into one proceeding, called the Marriage Cases.
• Proposition 22’s author, Senator Pete Knight, passes away from leukemia.
2005
• The Court of Appeal in Sacramento upholds the full legal status of married spouses for same-sex domestic partners under AB 205. Then, the California Supreme Court declines to review the issue. AB 205, including the full legal status of marriage for same-sex domestic partners, stands – despite the will of the voters.
• San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno introduces legislation to legalize homosexual marriage (AB 19). The bill passes two committees, but fails to pass the Assembly by just a few votes. Then, Leno renews his attempt to undermine the voters by sneaking his legislation into another bill already under consideration in the State Senate.
• In the Marriage Cases, a San Francisco Judge strikes down Proposition 22, ruling that the traditional definition of marriage violates California’s State Constitution. The ruling is stayed pending appeals. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is supposed to defend Proposition 22 but supports homosexual marriage rights, asks to expedite the appeals of the Marriage Cases directly to the California Supreme Court. If expedited, a final decision on whether the courts will re-define marriage is expected in 2006.
August 1, 2005
Joined by Senator Knight’s widow, Gail J. Knight, and California’s largest pro-family organizations, the Protect Marriage coalition comes together once again to stop the judges and politicians once and for all – by qualifying a Marriage Amendment to the California Constitution for the 2006 ballot. About 1 million unverified signatures (600,000 valid) must be gathered by Christmas 2005 to put the measure on the ballot – that is roughly 7,000 signatures per day!
September 2005
A same-sex marriage bill passes out of both houses and goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for his signature. He quickly vetoes the bill and the legislature cannot rally enough support to overturn his veto. Schwarzenegger publicly states in his veto message that he will not sign a same-sex marriage bill if another reaches his desk.
May 2006
No legislation, to date, has been introduced into either house. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has publicly stated that there will be no legislation this year. With elections in November, the Democrats do not want to risk losing seats over the issue of support for same-sex marriage. They are also hoping to unseat Gov. Schwarzenegger and replace him with a Democrat who would sign same-sex marriage legislation in 2007.
A decision about the constitutionality of Prop 22 is still pending in the California Appeals court. Oral arguments will commence in early summer with a decision pending come late summer, early fall. It is expected that regardless of the court’s decision, an appeal will be made of the California Supreme court. A final decision could be rendered in early 2007. If the Supreme Court strikes down the provisions of Prop 22 it will necessitate a new ballot initiative from the people. The Protectmarriage.org coalition stands ready to respond.
December 2006
New legislation is again introduced by Assemblyman Mark Leno. AB 43 would legalize same-sex “marriage.”