In re Marriage Cases

rdf:langString In re Marriage Cases

rdf:langString California Proposition 8 Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional in Hollingsworth v. Perry thereby restoring the full legal effect of the decision

rdf:langString Kennard, Werdegar, Moreno

rdf:langString Cal. Const. art. 1 §§ 1, 7, and Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300, 308.5

rdf:langString In re MARRIAGE CASES. [Six consolidated appeals.]

rdf:langString #Sexual orientation is recognized as a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. #Offering a legal relationship called "marriage" to opposite-sex couples while consigning gay couples to "domestic partnerships" impinges upon the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships equal dignity and respect. #The distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships risks the right to privacy regarding sexual orientation for those in domestic partnerships. #Both because a suspect class is targeted and because fundamental rights are impinged upon by the challenged provisions, the strict scrutiny standard of review applies, under which those provisions limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples must serve a compelling state interest and be necessary to serve such an interest. Neither being the case, laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are unconstitutional.

rdf:langString In re Marriage Cases

rdf:langString George

rdf:langString In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (Cal. 2008) was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict scrutiny and same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The court found that two statutes barring same-sex marriage in California, one enacted in 1977 by the legislature and the other in 2000 by state voters (Proposition 22), were unconstitutional. The decision was the first in the United States to establish sexual orientation as a suspect classification. On June 4, 2008, the court denied a request for rehearing and a request to put a hold on the ruling, affirming that the decision would take effect as scheduled. The writ of mandate directing the state government to comply with the ruling and grant same-sex marriages was issued by the Superior Court of California on June 19, 2008. On November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which limited marriage under the California Constitution to opposite-sex couples. This decision did not disturb that part of the court's holding that gay men and lesbians constitute a suspect class for purposes of equal protection under Art. I § 7. The Supreme Court of California joined the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts as the second state to have its highest court rule prohibitions on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, although for somewhat different reasons. Later in 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down a similar decision, as did the Iowa Supreme Court in April 2009 (see Varnum v. Brien). Before a series of federal court cases occurred striking down various state's prohibition of same-sex marriage, the New Mexico Supreme Court also struck down the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage in a unanimous decision in December 2013. The judgment In re Marriage Cases was in part mooted by Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009), which was itself mooted by Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013).

rdf:langString Kennard

rdf:langString Baxter

rdf:langString Corrigan

rdf:langString Chin