In March 2005, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled Prop 22 unconstitutional, and in April, AB 205 was passed by the California legislature; a law which extended many marriage benefits to domestic partners of any sex.

These challenges to the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage spurred a change in strategy: rather than defend Prop 22, the advocates associated with the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund would re-organize under a new name to pass new legislation.

Kerns, a public relations consultant, was previously the communications director for Steve Poizner's successful 2006 bid for the position of California Insurance Commissioner.

[2] It appeared on the ballot as the Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Initiative Constitutional Amendment but was called the California Marriage Protection Act by proponents.

The proponents of the measure spent approximately $40 million to promote the proposition, which passed, defining marriage in California as being between one man and one woman.

[23] Pugno said he considered a number of legal firms but settled upon Cooper & Kirk because he believed them on par with Theodore Olson, former United States Solicitor General, the attorney for the plaintiffs.

"[24] Pugno said that ProtectMarriage.com has tried to distance itself from "strident and combative" fringe groups in order to set a "civilized tone" for the defense, in the same manner as the proposition campaign.

[28] Plaintiff Rick Jacobs of Courage Campaign said that "Prop 8 backers are continuing their pattern of keeping the truth about this trial from the American public.

Nathan Sabri, an attorney with Morrison & Foerster, the law firm handling the case pro bono for Courage Campaign, responded by writing that the request had no merit, and that his client had noted the irony of the ProtectMarriage.com position—that the image of two children flanked by a man and a woman was said by ProtectMarriage.com to be "substantially indistinguishable" from the two children flanked by two women.

[29][30] Federal judge Lawrence K. Karlton ruled in favor of Courage Campaign's argument which cited prior cases of one logo being parodied by another.

[3] In 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the proposition violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

California resumed issuing same-sex marriage certificates the following day, leading ProtectMarriage.com to file an emergency application with the Supreme Court, asking that the marriages be halted because the state had not waited the usual 25 days during which the Supreme Court can be asked to reconsider a case before its disposition is considered final.