READ THE AMENDMENT  See the text and legal effect		ENDORSE THE AMENDMENT Support true-blue protection
	MAKE A DONATION  Help marriage win!		WHY PROP. 22 DIDN'T WORK The problem and the solution (PDF)
	SIGN UP: EMAIL UPDATES  Plug in and stay informed		YES, CHURCHES CAN HELP OK to support ballot initiatives

QUESTION: Why does California need a marriage amendment on the ballot? Didn't we already pass Proposition 22 in 2000 to protect marriage for a man and a woman?

ANSWER: Yes, Californians voted to keep marriage for a man and a woman when they passed Proposition 22. But it wasn't strong or detailed enough to protect marriage! Over the last several years, the judges and the politicians trashed the people's vote. Now we must override the bureaucracy, and fully and permanently protect marriage in the California State Constitution with The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. More...

News and Information   > California Supreme Court hears "same-sex marriage" case    Seven justices seem split on emotionally-charged issue; decision due by June 2   > California politicians pass "same-sex marriages" a second time    VoteYesMarriage.com urges 'generous souls' to place marriage on ballot    > California bill functionally abolishing marriage fails but is likely to return    SB 11 proposed marriage rights to a man and a woman who refused to marry   >  Schwarzenegger, Brown: Marriage can be abolished, marriage rights eliminated     VoteYesMarriage.com: "Proof positive that our initiative is abolutely needed"     AG Jerry Brown's 8/17/07 brief (PDF) and Gov. Schwarzenegger's 8/17/07 brief (PDF)      > Understand why California's Proposition 22 didn't protect marriage rights:     How The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Amendment is the solution (PDF)   > California Supreme Court Schemes to Create 'Same-Sex Marriages’    VoteYesMarriage.com urges Californians to override the judges and politicians   > California Appellate Court Rules No Right to ‘Same-Sex Marriage’    VoteYesMarriage.com warns victory for marriage and the voters may be short-lived   > Californians Overwhelmingly Favor Protecting Marriage: The Field Poll has been    consistently incorrect on the people's pulse for marriage (PDF)   Lessons from Other States   > Massachusetts Disaster: Thank God that the California Legislature doesn't have to     approve of ballot initiatives like in Massachusetts  > Oregon: They blew it by only protecting the word 'marriage,' not marriage rights.      Two-and-a-half years after passing a weak marriage amendment, the Governor and    Legislature there legalized counterfeit marriages equating same-sex couples to a    husband and wife.   > Connecticut: 'Civil unions' lead to 'gay marriage' in Connecticut lawsuit    > Alaska Outrage: Alaska Supreme Court shows why just defining "marriage" is not    enough - you MUST protect marriage rights against "marriage by another name"   > Michigan Lesson: Why leaving out "marriage rights" and "marriage-equivalent    benefits" from your text allows judges to mess with marriage