Talk:2000 California Proposition 22

Untitled
It seems that somebody has confused Propsition 22, the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and transportation Act of 2010, which concerns the state's ability to take local revenues, with Proposition 8, the 2000 ban on same-sex marriage, which has an article of its own in Wikipedia. This article is mislabeled. Would somebody please look into this and figure how to fix it? Errorferret (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

city lawsuit
Has the city's lawsuit been resolved? If so, in what way? I think that's something to include, and the linked-to article only seems to talk about the resolution of the lawsuit against the city, not the one initiated by the city. The Literate Engineer 17:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy of marriage licensing within California
I rewrote a passage of this section, which effectively reverted an edit made on 07-Jan-2007 (diff; see second paragraph at line 31). The edit to which I object asserts that no controvery exists as to Prop 22's reach within the marriage statutes.

The controversy I originally referenced centers on whether or not Prop 22 governs marriage licenses within the state; there is no disagreement as to its effect on marriage contracted outside of California.

Rather than merely reverting the edit, I expanded with quotations (referenced to the precise page within the California Official Reports). The references that were already at the end of this paragraph (and which remain) provide three independent perspectives (legislative analyst for the California Assembly Judiciary Committee, Los Angeles Times article, and an article from the Ventura County Bar Association [see referenced PDF at p. 9, "2005: Yo-Yo Down, Yo-Yo Up"]).

Given the present references, it seems clear that a controversy exists. If for any reason further citation is required to establish that the nature of the controversy, I can clog up the article with many more paragraphs and verifiable authorities.

I believe that neutrality requires noting the presence of this controversy. The article is weaker (and strays into POV) without pointing out the debate. Absent some objection, I believe the present citations are more than adequate to establish that there is a dispute on this topic. If there's a serious concern about noting this controversy, please chime in here. I'm happy to respond.

Wonderbreadsf 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledging the existence of a controversy is fine, though it bears noting that the pre-Jan.7 version did not do that, instead stating unequivocally that Prop 22 applies to out of state marriages only. The January 18 edits go too far in the opposite direction, implying that the controversy exists not only among the population at large but also among California courts, which is not true. Far from ruling that Prop 22 applies only to out of state marriages, the Armijo court carefully weighed the narrow issue of whether a California statute extending wrongful death benefits to California domestic partners did or did not run afoul of Prop 22. That entire question would have been moot if the Armijo court did not believe Prop 22 applied to in-state arrangements at all. It makes no sense to rule first on what a statute WOULD mean if it DID apply, and then argue that it doesn't apply after all. And if that is what the court thinks, the entire ruling should be vacated.

Thus, we do have a controversy, and it's fine to mention that, but if we do, the least we can do is also mention that 2 out of 2 appellate courts both say Prop 22 means what it says, not what its opponents apparently wish it said. It's probably worth noting that not even its opponents appeared to believe Prop 22 was limited to out of state marriages at the time it was on the ballot, if the argument against Prop 22 and the rebuttal to the argument for it are any indication.

I also cleaned up the language about dicta. Dicta concerns whether the portion of the opinion in question is necessary to its holding, not whether the statute itself is or is not being challenged. I understand the dicta argument to be, in essence, that while a ruling either case that X did violate Prop 22 would have required both a holding that Prop 22 applied to the situation and a separate finding that X violated it, rulings that X does not violate Prop 22 only require a holding that either the law does not apply or the challenged act does not violate it. These leaves some weasel room over the question of which prong is The Essential Holding and which prong can be dismissed as dicta. I think a much stronger case can be made that a determination that Prop 22 does apply to in-state marriage is essential to any holding that any particular in-state arrangement does or does not run afoul of it. However, that is my POV, not a hard and fast rule, so rather than remove the dicta argument I simply threw out the counterargument as an alternative.

Xrlq 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I got side tracked by real life and let this debate go. I just stumbled into again, so I'll briefly reply.


 * My continuing concern with your position can be summed up with this passage from your discussion above:


 * ''[Your] edits go too far in the opposite direction, implying that the controversy exists not only among the population at large but also among California courts, which is not true.


 * The courts have acknowledged a "controversy," one which you explicitly (and implicitly in your edits) deny exists. The Court of Appeal, in reversing the trial court's decision In re marriage cases, examined these two cases at some length. In this appellate decision, the court began the discussion by noting that "The scope of section 308.5 remains a matter of some dispute." It then went on to summarize the holdings on Prop. 22 (somewhat differently than you do), but ultimately concluded that :
 * We need not resolve this controversy because issues about the precise scope of Proposition 22, and whether it inhibits the Legislature from passing laws to permit same-sex marriage between Californians, are not directly presented in these appeals. Taken together, Family Code sections 300 and 308.5 clearly and consistently limit the institution of marriage in California to opposite-sex unions.


 * (emphasis added.)


 * You're presenting a perfectly cogent argument as to why the two earlier decisions are harmonious (at least by implication in Armijo). Where we part ways is in believing that your argument is conclusive with regard to section 308.5 standing alone. At least one district of the Court of Appeals says in plain language that the scope of Prop. 22 remains a source of controversy.


 * Obviously, this appellate decision isn't the last word (and not binding on any California court). Your position may well be vindicated by some future ruling. For the time being, however, the controversy remains within and without the court.
 * Wonderbreadsf 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I've made modest changes to the article. I have qualified your introduction to the holding in Armijo (the court "may have held"). Likewise, I removed "and some appear to have misread Armijo as limiting the territorial scope of Prop 22" from your description of the assertions In re marriage cases. Wonderbreadsf 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no "controversy" within the court regarding the territorial scope of Proposition 22, only wishful thinking without it. To the extent the Armijo court declined to rule on the issue, as you claim, it set *no* precedent on that issue, one way or the other.  Knight did, however, and that precedent now binds the entire state.  The Supreme Court could always reverse that position later, of course, but unless and until they do, there can be no serious contention that Prop 22 draws any distinction between in-state and out of state marriages.  Xrlq (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Significant expansion
As is obvious from the history, I've replaced most of the prior text. I did not preserve a couple of passages discussed here:


 * On February 19, 2004, the city and county of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against the state challenging the law. This lawsuit came out at the same time that San Francisco city officials attempted to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The case filed by the S.F. against the state was actually filed in March. More importantly, as initially filed, S.F. tried to treat Prop 22 as an ancillary issue. Ultimately, the consolidated and coordinated cases (six in total, although only one is mentioned here) did squarely address Prop 22. As a matter of emphasis, however, if we're going to point to only one case I would suggest that the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund case would be a more appropriate choice.


 * In March, Judge Richard Kramer overturned Proposition 22. "There appears to be no rational reason for limiting marriage to opposite sexes," Kramer wrote. Continued Kramer, "California cannot prohibit same-sex marriage, solely because California has done so before." The State appealed the decision, and on July 10th, oral arguments were heard before the California Court of Appeal for the 1st District. A ruling must be issued by the Court before or on October 10th, 2006. The ruling may ultimately be appealed to the Supreme Court for the State of California.

This information is dated and other wiki pages give it a much more thorough treatment. I made a cursory summation of the status to date and just linked to Same-sex marriage in California where the broader issues are probably better addressed.

For that matter, the convoluted history of domestic-partnerships, same-sex marriage and related issues in California could use an overhaul. I wonder if an entry on this single facet of the debate merits such a broad ranging discussion. I'll save the rest of the commentary for the California project discussion.

Also, I removed the legislative sub template. Feel free to restore if the present material is still too stubby Wonderbreadsf 01:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

California Supreme Court Ruling
On May 15 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned California's ban on same-sex marriages, and overturned Prop 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.213.71 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lying
There should be an entire section on how and why voters repeatedly lied to pollsters about their true intent. Every poll indicated opposition to marriage for same-sex couples to be much lower than what they turned out to be on election day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.17.197 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Was there evidence that the respondents lied? Were there any polls besides those conducted by the Field Institute? Perhaps the polls were flawed in some way. --ElderHap (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was it a Statute and not an Amendment?
It seems odd that Anti-Gay people didn't foresee a judicial overturning of the Statute which led to the Amendment Initiative....They could have avoided the whole ugly Prop 8. campaign. Though I'm glad they didn't and 18,000 couples got to Marry, hopefully to stick.--Occono (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California Proposition 22 (2000). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160630150250/http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160630150250/http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008203818/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2008%2F05%2F15%2Fstate%2Fn113018D48.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)