''In re Marriage Cases'', 43 Cal. 4th 757 (Cal. 2008) was a

California Supreme Court The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sac ...

case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on

sexual orientation Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generall ...

should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing

statute A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs the legal entities of a city, state, or country by way of consent. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. Statutes are rules made by ...

and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the

California Constitution The Constitution of California ( es, Constitución de California) is the primary organizing law for the U.S. state of California, describing the duties, powers, structures and functions of the government of California. California's original c ...

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 Same-sex marriage in California has been legal since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of ''In re Marriage Cases ...

, 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 The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or America, is a country Continental United States, primarily located in North America. It consists of 50 U.S. state, states, a Washington, D.C., ...

to establish sexual orientation as a

suspect classification In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Prot ...

. 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 marriage Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is the marriage of two people of the same sex or gender. marriage between same-sex couples is legally performed and recognized in 33 countries, with the most recent being Mexico, constituting ...

s was issued by the

Superior Court of California Superior courts in California are the state trial courts with general jurisdiction to hear and decide any civil or criminal action which is not specially designated to be heard in some other court or before a governmental agency. As mandated by t ...

on June 19, 2008. On November 4, 2008, California voters approved

Proposition 8 Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in cou ...

, 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 The Supreme Court of California is the Supreme court, highest and final court of appeals in the judiciary of California, courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, but it regularly h ...

joined the

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Although the claim is disputed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the SJC claims the distinction of being the oldest continuously funct ...

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 The Connecticut Supreme Court, formerly known as the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, is the highest court in the U.S. state of Connecticut. It consists of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. The seven justices sit in Hartford, a ...

handed down a similar decision, as did the

Iowa Supreme Court The Iowa Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of Iowa. The Court is composed of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. The Court holds its regular sessions in Des Moines in the Iowa Judicial Branch Building located at 1111 ...

in April 2009 (see ''

Varnum v. Brien ''Varnum v. Brien'', 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009), was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The ...

''). Before a series of federal court cases occurred striking down various state's prohibition of same-sex marriage, the

New Mexico Supreme Court The New Mexico Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of New Mexico. It is established and its powers defined by Article VI of the New Mexico Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decis ...

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 ''Strauss v. Horton'', 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on Nov ...

'', 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009), which was itself mooted by ''

Hollingsworth v. Perry ''Hollingsworth v. Perry'' was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found th ...

'' (2013).

Procedural history

At the direction of Mayor

Gavin Newsom Gavin Christopher Newsom (born October 10, 1967) is an American politician and businessman who has been the 40th governor of California since 2019. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the 49th lieutenant governor of California f ...

, the Office of the

County Clerk A clerk is a white-collar worker who conducts general office tasks, or a worker who performs similar sales-related tasks in a retail environment. The responsibilities of clerical workers commonly include record keeping, filing, staffing service ...

of San Francisco "designed revised forms for the marriage license application and for the license and certificate of marriage, and on February 12, 2004, the City and County of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples." On February 13, two organizations, the

Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund ProtectMarriage.com was a collection of conservative and religious American political activist groups aligned in opposition to same-sex marriage. The coalition's stated goal is to "defend and restore the definition of marriage as between a man an ...

, and the

Campaign for California Families Campaign for California Families is a non-profit organization promoting socially conservative public policy in California, founded by Randy Thomasson, who also founded the Campaign for Children and Families. Campaign for California Families is ...

, filed actions in San Francisco Superior Court (the

court of first instance A court is any person or institution, often as a government institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accorda ...

) seeking an immediate

stay Stay may refer to: Places * Stay, Kentucky, an unincorporated community in the US Law * Stay of execution, a ruling to temporarily suspend the enforcement of a court judgment * Stay of proceedings, a ruling halting further legal process in a tri ...

to prohibit the City from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.''In re Marriage Cases'', California Supreme Court, S147999
/ref> The Superior court refused to grant the groups' request for an immediate stay, and the City and County continued to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Following this, the

California Attorney General The attorney general of California is the state attorney general of the Government of California. The officer's duty is to ensure that "the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced" (Constitution of California, Article V, Section ...

and a number of taxpayers filed two separate petitions seeking to have the California Supreme Court issue an original writ of mandate, asserting that the City's actions were unlawful and "warranted he court'simmediate intervention." On March 11, 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered officials of San Francisco "to enforce the existing marriage statutes and to refrain from issuing marriage licenses not authorized by such provisions." The Court later held in '' Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco'' that the City and County had acted unlawfully, but was free to bring an action challenging the constitutionality of the marriage laws if it wished. The City and County of San Francisco then filed a Petition for writ of mandate in Superior Court, seeking a declaration that "all California statutory provisions limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman violate the California Constitution." All six actions were consolidated (coordinated) in a single proceeding called ''In re Marriage Cases''. LGBT rights groups, including

Equality California Equality California or EQCA is a non-profit civil rights organization that advocates for the rights of LGBT people in California. It is the largest statewide LGBT organization in the United States and the largest member of the Equality Federat ...

Lambda Legal Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, better known as Lambda Legal, is an American civil rights organization that focuses on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities as well as people living with HIV/AIDS ( PWAs) through imp ...

and the

National Center for Lesbian Rights The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is a non-profit, public interest law firm in the United States that advocates for equitable public policies affecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, provides free legal ...

, were also among the plaintiffs. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer held for the plaintiffs, finding that the marriage restriction was invalid under the

strict scrutiny In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate th ...

standard based on a

gender Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them. Depending on the context, this may include sex-based social structures (i.e. gender roles) and gender identity. Most culture ...

. In October 2006, in a two-to-one decision, the First District of the Court of Appeal of California reversed the superior court's ruling on the substantive constitutional issue, disagreeing in a number of significant respects with the lower court's analysis of the equal protection issue." The California Supreme Court, however, then reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald George, cited the court's 1948 decision in '' Perez v. Sharp'' that reversed the state's interracial marriages ban. The court found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to

under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. It was the first state high court in the country to do so. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, by contrast, did not find sexual orientation to be a protected class, and instead voided its gay-marriage ban on

rational basis review In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts apply when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendme ...

. After the announcement, the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the

Alliance Defense Fund Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group that works to curtail rights for LGBTQ people; expand Christian practices within public schools and in government; and ...

, among others, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. Governor

Arnold Schwarzenegger Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian and American actor, film producer, businessman, retired professional bodybuilder and politician who served as the 38th governor of California between 2003 and 2011. ''Time'' ...

immediately issued a statement pledging to uphold the ruling, and repeated his pledge to oppose

. In a one-page Resolution, the California Supreme Court on June 4, 2008, denied all petitions for rehearing and to reconsider the May 15 ruling, as it removed the final obstacle to same-sex marriages starting on June 17. It further rejected moves to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November election, when voters would decide whether to reinstate a ban on same-sex nuptials. Chief Justice Ronald George and Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and Carlos Moreno voted against reconsideration, while voting to reconsider the judgment were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin, and Carol Corrigan.

Quotations

In the majority decision:

der this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.

rict scrutiny ... is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion — a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.

e exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.

e right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes ''a basic civil or human right of all people''."

In the concurrence and dissent of Justice Baxter:

Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage—an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law—is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

e majority's approach has removed the sensitive issues surrounding same-sex marriage from their proper forum—the arena of legislative resolution—and risks opening the door to similar treatment of other, less deserving, claims of a right to marry. By thus moving the policy debate from the legislative process to the court, the majority engages in faulty constitutional analysis and violates the separation of powers.

If such a profound change in this ancient social institution is to occur, the People and their representatives, who represent the public conscience, should have the right, and the responsibility, to control the pace of that change through the democratic process. Family Code sections 300 and 308.5 serve this salutary purpose. The majority's decision erroneously usurps it.

In the concurrence and dissent by Justice Corrigan:

The process of reform and familiarization should go forward in the legislative sphere and in society at large. We are in the midst of a major social change. Societies seldom make such changes smoothly. For some the process is frustratingly slow. For others it is jarringly fast. In a democracy, the people should be given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference. That is the way democracies work. Ideas are proposed, debated, tested. Often new ideas are initially resisted, only to be ultimately embraced. But when ideas are imposed, opposition hardens and progress may be hampered.Concurring and dissenting opinion of Corrigan, J., p. 26

References

External links

Text of the decisionVideo recording of the trial
''

C-SPAN Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN ) is an American cable and satellite television network that was created in 1979 by the cable television industry as a nonprofit public service. It televises many proceedings of the United States ...

''
Audio recording of the trial
'' EdgeCast Networks''
State Supreme Court says same-sex couples have right to marry
''

San Francisco Chronicle The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' is a newspaper serving primarily the San Francisco Bay Area of Northern California. It was founded in 1865 as ''The Daily Dramatic Chronicle'' by teenage brothers Charles de Young and Michael H. de Young. The pa ...

'', May 15, 2008 {{Same-sex marriage in the United States Supreme Court of California case law Discrimination in California LGBT rights in California 2008 in LGBT history 2008 in United States case law American Civil Liberties Union litigation United States same-sex union case law

Procedural history

Quotations

See also

References

External links