In re Marriage Cases

Last updated
In re Marriage Cases
CA SC seal.png
Court Supreme Court of California
Full case nameIn re MARRIAGE CASES. [Six consolidated appeals.]
ArguedMarch 4 2008
DecidedMay 15 2008
Citation(s) 43 Cal.4th 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
  1. Sexual orientation is recognized as a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.
  2. 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.
  3. The distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships risks the right to privacy regarding sexual orientation for those in domestic partnerships.
  4. 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 Justice Ronald M. George
Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Kathryn M. Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, Carlos R. Moreno, Carol A. Corrigan
Case opinions
MajorityGeorge, joined by Kennard, Werdegar, Moreno
ConcurrenceKennard
Concur/dissentBaxter , joined by Chin
Concur/dissentCorrigan
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Superseded by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. [1]

Supreme Court of California the highest court in the U.S. state of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court in the courts of the State of California. It resides in the State Building in San Francisco in Civic Center overlooking Civic Center Square along with City Hall. It also holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.

Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction 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 generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, while asexuality is sometimes identified as the fourth category.

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to determine which is weightier, a constitutional right or principle or the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

Contents

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. [2] 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. [3] 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. [4]

Same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S. state of California, and first became so on June 16, 2008, when the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as the result of the Supreme Court of California ruling in In re Marriage Cases, which found that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the state's Constitution. The issuance of those licenses was halted during the period of November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the United States Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

United States Federal republic in North America

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States or America, is a country composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions. At 3.8 million square miles, the United States is the world's third or fourth largest country by total area and is slightly smaller than the entire continent of Europe's 3.9 million square miles. With a population of over 327 million people, the U.S. is the third most populous country. The capital is Washington, D.C., and the largest city by population is New York City. Forty-eight states and the capital's federal district are contiguous in North America between Canada and Mexico. The State of Alaska is in the northwest corner of North America, bordered by Canada to the east and across the Bering Strait from Russia to the west. The State of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific Ocean. The U.S. territories are scattered about the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, stretching across nine official time zones. The extremely diverse geography, climate, and wildlife of the United States make it one of the world's 17 megadiverse countries.

In American jurisprudence, a suspect classification is any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action, or sometimes private action.

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. [5]

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.

Connecticut Supreme Court the highest court in the U.S. state of Connecticut

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, across the street from the Connecticut State Capitol. It generally holds eight sessions of two to three weeks per year, with one session each September through November and January through May. Justices are appointed by the governor and then approved by the Connecticut General Assembly.

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407, is a 2008 decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court holding that allowing same-sex couples to form same-sex unions but not marriages violates the Connecticut Constitution. It was the third time that a ruling by the highest court of a U.S. state legalized same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) and California in In re Marriage Cases (2008). This case legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut.

<i>Varnum v. Brien</i>

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, was a unanimous decision of the Iowa Supreme Court dated April 3, 2009, in which the Court held that the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The case had the effect of legally recognizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. In 2007, a lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of six same-sex couples who sued Timothy Brien, Polk County Recorder, for refusing to grant them marriage licenses.

The judgment In re Marriage Cases was in part mooted by Strauss v. Horton , 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009), [6] which was itself mooted by Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013).

Mootness

In law, the terms moot and mootness have different meanings in British English and American English. The concept is important in U.S. jurisprudence but is little used elsewhere outside law schools.

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".

Hollingsworth v. Perry were a series of United States federal court cases that 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 that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

Procedural history

At the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom, the Office of the County Clerk 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, and the Campaign for California Families, filed actions in San Francisco Superior Court (the court of first instance) seeking an immediate stay to prohibit the City from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. [7] :12

Gavin Newsom 40th Governor of California

Gavin Christopher Newsom is an American politician and businessman. He is the 40th governor of California, serving since January 2019. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served as the 49th lieutenant governor of California from 2011 to 2019 and as the 42nd mayor of San Francisco from 2004 to 2011. He was sworn in as Governor of California on January 7, 2019.

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 best known for its successful effort to pass California's Proposition 22, which prohibited same-sex marriage before that measure was overturned by the decision in In re Marriage Cases in 2008. It also unsuccessfully attempted to legally intervene in the consolidated Strauss v. Horton case and in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

A stay of execution is a court order to temporarily suspend the execution of a court judgment or other court order. The word "execution" does not necessarily mean the death penalty ; it refers to the imposition of whatever judgment is being stayed. It is similar to an injunction.

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 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 [the court's] immediate 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. [8] 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. [7] :14 LGBT rights groups, including Equality California, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, were also among the plaintiffs. [9]

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer held for the plaintiffs, finding that the marriage restriction was invalid under the strict scrutiny standard based on a suspect classification of gender. 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." [7] :16

The 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 strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution. [7] It was the first state high court in the country to do so. [10] 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. [11]

After the announcement, the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, among others, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately issued a statement pledging to uphold the ruling, and repeated his pledge to oppose Proposition 8. [12]

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. [13] 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. [14]

Quotations

In the majority decision:

[U]nder 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. [7] :6

[S]trict 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. [7] :10

[T]he 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. [7] :11

[T]he 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." [7] :63

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. [15]

[T]he 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. [16]

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. [17]

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. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

Same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various state court rulings, state legislation, direct popular votes, and federal court rulings. Same-sex marriage is also referred to as gay marriage, while the political status in which the marriages of same-sex couples and the marriages of opposite-sex couples are recognized as equal by the law is referred to as marriage equality. The fifty states each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right that is guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2004.

2000 California Proposition 22

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 to prevent marriage between same-sex couples. In May 2008, it was struck down by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution.

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to all same-sex couples, and to those opposite-sex couples where at least one party is age 62 or older. It affords the couple "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses.

Richard A. Kramer is a judge serving on the San Francisco County Superior Court. He is most known for his 2005 ruling striking down Proposition 22, a California ballot initiative defining marriage as only valid when between a man and a woman.

The San Francisco 2004 same-sex weddings took place between February 11 and March 11, 2004, after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a number of interest groups sued to end the practice. About 4,000 such licenses were issued before the California Supreme Court ordered a halt to the practice on March 11. On August 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court voided all of the licenses that had been issued in February and March.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2008.

2008 California Proposition 8 ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment passed in November 2008

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

Kathryn Werdegar American judge

Kathryn Mickle Werdegar is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California, serving from June 3, 1994, to August 31, 2017.

The recorded history of marriage in California is long and encompasses a period as far back as the first Spanish missions and even further back in unrecorded history of Native American Indians and their marriage rituals.

<i>Baehr v. Miike</i>

Baehr v. Miike was a lawsuit in which three same-sex couples argued that Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. Initiated in 1990, as the case moved through the state courts, the passage of an amendment to the state constitution in 1998 led to the dismissal of the case in 1999. Congressional Republicans used the possibility that the courts might invalidate Hawaii's marriage eligibility requirements, as appeared possible following the Supreme Court of Hawaii's 1993 decision in this case, as a reason for the enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. Dozens of statutes and constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions at the state level also followed Baehr.

LGBT rights in California

California is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights, which have received nationwide recognition since the 1970s. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1976. Discrimination protections regarding sexual orientation and gender identity or expression have been adopted statewide since 2003. Public schools are also required to teach about the history of the LGBT community and transgender students are allowed to choose the appropriate restroom or sports team that match their gender identity. Mental health providers are prohibited from participating in conversion therapy for LGBT minors.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

LGBT rights in Nebraska

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Nebraska may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Nebraska, as is same-sex marriage. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity isn't banned statewide, though the state's largest city, Omaha, has enacted provisions banning such discrimination.

Same-sex marriage in Arkansas is legal under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, a landmark case in which same-sex marriage bans were struck down on June 26, 2015. Prior to that, same-sex marriage in Arkansas was briefly legal for a period beginning on May 9, 2014, as the result of a ruling by Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Chris Piazza, striking down the state's constitutional and legislative ban on same-sex marriage as violating the Constitution of the United States. Approximately 541 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in several Arkansas counties before the Arkansas Supreme Court stayed his ruling pending appeal on May 16, 2014.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

References

  1. News Release 26, May 15, 2008, In re Marriage Cases, S147999.
  2. Dolan, Maura (May 16, 2008). "California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved 2010-03-25.
  3. Egelko, Bob (June 5, 2008). "State high court won't stay same-sex nuptials". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved 2008-06-05.
  4. Egelko, Bob (2008-06-20). "It's official: No more 'man and woman' in state's marriage law". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-06-20.
  5. Cheryl Miller (November 6, 2008). "Prop. 8 puts squeeze on Calif. chief justice". The Recorder.
  6. For a review of Strauss vs. Horton see: Thomas Kupka, Names and Designations in Law, in: The Journal Jurisprudence 6 (2010) 121-130 Archived 2011-07-06 at the Wayback Machine .
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, S147999
  8. Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055 [95 P.3d 459, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 225]
  9. "California ban on same-sex marriage struck down". CNN. May 15, 2008.
  10. Liptak, Adam (2008-05-15). "California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-05-16.
  11. Bazelon, Emily (May 16, 2004). "The same-sex marriage argument that Justice Scalia fears". The Boston Globe . Retrieved 2008-05-20.
  12. Crystal Carreon, Bill Lindelof and Andy Furillo (May 15, 2008). "Gay marriage legal in California, court declares". Sacramento Bee.
  13. News Release 31: California Supreme Court Denies Rehearing and Stay in Marriage Cases
  14. Calif. court refuses to stall gay marriage
  15. Concurring and dissenting opinion of Baxter, J., p. 1
  16. Concurring and dissenting opinion of Baxter, J., p. 18
  17. Concurring and dissenting opinion of Baxter, J., p. 26
  18. Concurring and dissenting opinion of Corrigan, J., p. 26