On 28 February 2016, the popular initiative "For marriage and family — against the marriage penalty", launched by the CVP/PDC (Christian Democrats), is narrowly rejected by voters: 50.8% no against 49.2% yes, a gap of 55,072 votes. Notably, it is accepted by 16½ cantons — a majority of cantons — but fails on the popular majority.
The initiative aimed to remove the tax disadvantage faced by married dual-income couples under the direct federal tax. But its text also wrote into the Constitution a definition of marriage as "the lasting, legally regulated union of a man and a woman".
The Federal Council and Parliament recommended rejection. Three years later, this ballot would meet an unprecedented fate: its annulment by the Federal Supreme Court.
▲ Cantons that accepted 16½ cantons accepted the initiative — a majority of cantons, mainly Catholic and rural cantons of central and eastern Switzerland. | ▼ Cantons that rejected 10 cantons rejected it, including the large urban cantons and part of the Plateau, which was enough to tip the popular majority into the no. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • CVP/PDC (Christian Democrats) (initiative committee) • Christophe Darbellay (then party president) • EDU/UDF, EVP/PEV (small Christian parties) • Part of the SVP (support) | ▼ No camp • Federal Council • Majority of Parliament • FDP, SP, Greens, GLP, BDP (broad party front) • Pink Cross, LGBT and feminist organisations (against the marriage definition) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR The marriage tax penalty is a real and widespread injustice « Tens of thousands of married couples pay more tax than cohabiting couples on equal income. » — CVP/PDC initiative committee, 2016 ✓ Argument confirmed The injustice was real — and even markedly underestimated by the authorities. In 2018 the Confederation admitted that 704,000 couples were discriminated against (454,000 dual-income couples and 250,000 retired couples), not the 80,000 announced. The party's diagnosis was confirmed by the administration's own admission. Source: FDF, 2018 statement; BGE/ATF 145 I 207. Only a constitutional guarantee will solve the problem for good « Without anchoring in the Constitution, unequal treatment will persist. » — CVP/PDC committee, 2016 campaign ✗~ Partly refuted The penalty was ultimately removed without the demanded constitutional article: through a legislative reform introducing individual taxation, accepted on 8 March 2026 (54.2%). The legislative route thus sufficed — at the cost of another decade and several failed attempts. Source: Federal Act on individual taxation, vote of 8 March 2026. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST The "man-woman" definition would constitutionally bar marriage for all « This initiative effectively bans marriage for all. » — opponents and LGBT organisations, 2016 ✓ Argument confirmed The text defined marriage as "the lasting union of a man and a woman". Marriage for all was accepted in September 2021 by 64.1% of voters; had the party's clause been in the Constitution, same-sex marriage would have been locked out and would have required a further vote. The warning proved correct. Source: Initiative text; "marriage for all" vote of 26 September 2021. The tax problem can be fixed by law, without touching the Constitution « A legislative reform of the direct federal tax is enough; a definition of marriage does not belong in the Constitution. » — Federal Council, 2016 ✓~ Partly confirmed The penalty was indeed corrected by ordinary legislation — the individual taxation accepted in 2026 — confirming a constitutional change was not indispensable. The caveat: it took ten more years, and the issue stayed politically contested to the end (21 cantons against the 2026 reform). Source: Individual taxation reform, 2026. |
Factual record
2 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ! | An annulled vote, unseen since 1848 On 10 April 2019 the Federal Supreme Court annulled the vote: citizens had been poorly informed, as the official booklet spoke of 80,000 penalised couples when there were nearly ten times more. It was the first annulment of a federal vote in Swiss history. Source: BGE/ATF 145 I 207; Federal Supreme Court, 10 April 2019. |
| ✓ | The scale of the injustice, finally acknowledged In June 2018 the Confederation admitted its error: 704,000 married couples were tax-disadvantaged, not 80,000. The core of the party's argument was thus validated — and even reinforced — by the administration itself. Source: FDF, 2018. |
| ~ | The problem solved, but by another route For lack of a re-vote, the initiative was withdrawn by its committee. The marriage penalty was finally removed through individual taxation, accepted on 8 March 2026 (54.2%) — a legislative reform, not the constitutional revision the party had wanted ten years earlier. Source: Federal vote of 8 March 2026. |
Few ballots have followed so singular a path. Narrowly rejected by voters even as it won over a majority of cantons, the initiative was then annulled by the Federal Supreme Court — a first since the founding of the federal state in 1848 — because the official booklet had underestimated the number of affected couples tenfold.
On the tax substance, the party was right: the marriage penalty was real and far broader than the administration admitted. That finding is solid, and was corroborated by the Confederation's admission of error in 2018.
But the initiative carried a second, less visible content: a constitutional "man-woman" definition of marriage that would have blocked the marriage for all approved five years later. On this point the opponents saw clearly, and the party itself eventually dropped the definition.
The tax penalty found its solution a decade later through individual taxation — by law, not by Constitution. Proof that a correct diagnosis does not validate the proposed remedy.