Same sex marriage: what did CA vote on five years ago?

[Eric J in MN]

Arnold S.'s press secretary, Margita Thompson issued this:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/12584781.htm

``Five years ago the matter of same-sex marriage was placed before the people of California. The people voted and the issue is now before the courts.

``The Governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action -- which would be unconstitutional -- but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state. We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the Governor will veto AB 849.''

==========================

Can someone explain what was voted on five years ago and what the courts are doing?

[Oeditpus Rex]

1. CA voters approved a ballot measure

in 2000 to add, I believe, 11 words to the state constitution to make it read that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

If memory serves, the measure passed 57 percent to 43. A stunning defeat for those of us who thought we lived in a more enlightened state.

[Eric J in MN]

2. What is the issue in the court case? nt

nt

[Eric J in MN]

4. This webpage says Prop 22 is just a statute, not a Constitutional

amendment:
http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm

[kskold]

3. prop 22 and appeals

Here's a link to an article in the SF Chronicle.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/07/state/n174658D66.DTL

Prop 22 won 64% of the vote in March 2000. The complete text of the proposition: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The courts are considering appeals against this, on the grounds that such discrimination is unconstitutional. This March, Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer ruled against the ban. I don't know how many levels of appeal are possible before someone has the final say.

Kristen
not new, just quiet

[Oeditpus Rex]

5. Information on the 'marriagewatch' site is misleading

Prop. 22 did indeed amend the California Constitution. I'd cite the amendment, but apparently the constitution is not up to date on the state web site (http://www.ca.gov/state/portal/myca_leftnav_categories.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1656931468.1126166950@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccjaddfimiekjmcfngcfkmdffidfnf.0&sLeftNavCategoryPath=%2fNavigation%2fGovernment%2fConstitutions,+Laws+and+Regulations&sNavTitle=Constitutions,+Laws+and+Regulations).

This analysis in the SF Chron explains a few things: Governor's hands were tied in gay marriage veto.

[kskold]

6. constitution?

Are you certain about Prop 22 amending the constitution? Because the Chron article said it modified part of the family law statutes.

And isn't there a signature drive underway for a proposition that *would* amend the constitution?

[Oerdin]

7. To my knowledge.

No proposition actually changes the state's constitution. Instead they just become state laws if passed. Fairly large difference but I will difer to the lawyer types which might want to chime in.

[Oeditpus Rex]

8. I thought I was sure

But the Chron story and others, and the failure of the online constitution's search function to find any reference to "marriage," has me thinking my brain might just be old.