Strauss v. Horton
| Strauss v. Horton | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | Supreme Court of California |
| Full case name |
Karen L. Strauss et al., Petitioners, v. Mark B. Horton et al., State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., Respondents; Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Interveners. Robin Tyler et al., Petitioners, v. State of California et al., Respondents; Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Interveners. City and County of San Francisco et al., Petitioners, v. Mark B. Horton et al., as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., Respondents; Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Interveners. |
| Argued | March 5 2009 |
| Decided | May 26 2009 |
| Citation(s) |
www 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591 207 P.3d 48 |
| Holding | |
| The Amendment to the State Constitution referred to as Proposition 8 is valid and enforceable from the moment it was passed. It cannot be applied to retroactively annul marriages that were transacted while the practice was legal in the State of California. | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Judge | Ronald M. George |
| Associate Judges |
Ming W. Chin • Carol A. Corrigan Joyce L. Kennard • Carlos R. Moreno Kathryn Mickle Werdegar |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | George, joined by Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Corrigan |
| Concurrence | Kennard |
| Concurrence | Werdegar |
| Concur/dissent | Moreno |
Karen L. Strauss et al., Petitioners,
v.
Mark B. Horton et al., State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., Respondents;
Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Interveners.
Robin Tyler et al., Petitioners,
v.
State of California et al., Respondents;
Dennis Hollingsworth et al., Interveners.
City and County of San Francisco et al., Petitioners,
v.
Mark B. Horton et al., as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., Respondents;
Ming W. Chin • Carol A. Corrigan
Joyce L. Kennard • Carlos R. Moreno
Strauss v. Horton 46 Cal.4th 364, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 207 P.3d 48, was the consolidation of three lawsuits following the passage of California's Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which went into effect on November 5. The suits were filed by a number of gay couples and governmental entities. Three of these six were accepted by the Supreme Court of California to be heard together. The oral arguments were made in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. These cases were new to the California Supreme Court, and Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that it will set precedent as "no previous case had presented the question of whether an initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".
The court rendered its decision on May 26, 2009. The ruling established that Proposition 8 was valid as voted, but that marriages performed before it went into effect would remain valid. On June 26, 2013, Strauss v. Horton was mooted by Hollingsworth v. Perry.
On November 13, 2008, the California Supreme Court asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to reply by November 17, 2008, to a number of lawsuits challenging the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The filing the court requested from the Attorney General was not to address the ballot measure's validity, but to focus on whether the justices should accept the suits for review and whether Proposition 8 should be suspended while they decide the case, said Christopher Krueger, a senior assistant attorney general.
...
Wikipedia