In Re Marriage Cases
183 P.3d 384 · 2008
Facts
The Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to couples without regard to gender or sexual orientation. On February 12, 2004, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. California statutes, specifically Family Code sections 300 and 308.5, limited marriage to a union between a man and a woman. While California had enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation granting same-sex couples virtually all state-level legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, their unions were officially designated as 'domestic partnerships' rather than 'marriages.' Numerous same-sex couples, some in long-term relationships and raising children, sought to marry or have their out-of-state marriages recognized. This disparity in designation led to legal challenges regarding the constitutionality of the state's marriage statutes.
Issue
Does the California Constitution prohibit the state from maintaining a statutory scheme where opposite-sex couples' unions are designated 'marriage' while same-sex couples' unions, despite having virtually all the same substantive rights and obligations, are designated 'domestic partnership'? Specifically, does the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as 'marriage' violate the fundamental right to marry or the equal protection clause of the California Constitution?
Holding
The California Supreme Court held that the current California statutory provisions limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are unconstitutional under the California Constitution. The court concluded that denying same-sex couples the designation of marriage violates their fundamental right to marry and the state's equal protection clause.
Rule
The fundamental constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution encompasses the core substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage, including the opportunity to establish an officially recognized family with equal dignity and respect. Statutory classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny, as sexual orientation constitutes a suspect classification. Under strict scrutiny, the state must demonstrate a compelling state interest and that the differential treatment is necessary to serve that interest. The court found that retaining the traditional definition of marriage was not a compelling state interest, as it imposed appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children and perpetuated a view of gay individuals as 'second-class citizens.'
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.