Talk:2000 California Proposition 22

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: city lawsuit

message: 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)
thread_title: Significant expansion

message: 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)
thread_title:  California Supreme Court Ruling 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lying 

message: 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)
thread_title: Why was it a Statute and not an Amendment?

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified