In re Marriage Cases

In re Marriage Cases
Court	Supreme Court of California
Full case name	In re MARRIAGE CASES. [Six consolidated appeals.]
Argued	March 4 2008
Decided	May 15 2008
Citation(s)	www.courtlistener.com/c/Cal.4th/43/757/ (2008) 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384
Case history
Prior action(s)	Judgment for Plaintiffs' reversed, 143 Cal.App.4th 873 (2006) [49 Cal.Rptr.3d 675]
Subsequent action(s)	Rehearing and Stay of Remittitur Denied June 4, 2008
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Judge	Ronald M. George
Associate Judges	Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Kathryn M. Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, Carlos R. Moreno, Carol A. Corrigan
Case opinions
Majority	George, joined by Kennard, Werdegar, Moreno
Concurrence	Kennard
Concur/dissent	Baxter , joined by Chin
Concur/dissent	Corrigan
Laws applied
Cal. Const. art. 1 §§ 1, 7, and Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300, 308.5
Superseded by
California Proposition 8

In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (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.

...
Wikipedia