Same-sex marriage in California

Last updated

Legal status of same-sex unions
  1. Performed in 14 states and Mexico City, and recognized by all states in such cases
  2. Performed in the Netherlands proper, and partially recognized by Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten in such cases
  3. Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau or the Cook Islands
  4. Neither performed nor recognized in Northern Ireland, the dependency of Sark or in 4 of the 14 British Overseas Territories (Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos Islands)
  5. Neither performed nor recognized in American Samoa or some tribal jurisdictions
  6. Theoretical: no actual cases known
  7. Limited to residency rights for foreign spouses of citizens (EU) or legal residents (China)
  8. Registration open in all counties except Hualien, Penghu, Taitung and Yunlin

* Not yet in effect, but automatic deadline set by judicial body for same-sex marriage to become legal

LGBT portal

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 (though existing same-sex marriages continued to be valid) due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. [1] 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.

California State of the United States of America

California is a state in the Pacific Region of the United States. With 39.6 million residents, California is the most populous U.S. state and the third-largest by area. The state capital is Sacramento. The Greater Los Angeles Area and the San Francisco Bay Area are the nation's second and fifth most populous urban regions, with 18.7 million and 9.7 million residents respectively. Los Angeles is California's most populous city, and the country's second most populous, after New York City. California also has the nation's most populous county, Los Angeles County, and its largest county by area, San Bernardino County. The City and County of San Francisco is both the country's second-most densely populated major city after New York City and the fifth-most densely populated county, behind only four of the five New York City boroughs.

A marriage license is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in the Middle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal.

On August 4, 2010, United States District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker declared Proposition 8 a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a decision upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012. The case, known as Perry v. Brown in the Ninth Circuit, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012. [2] The case was granted review as Hollingsworth v. Perry on December 7, 2012 and a decision was issued on June 26, 2013. [3] The Court decided that the official sponsors of Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to appeal the district court decision when the state's public officials refused to do so. [4] The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case was returned to that Court with instructions to dismiss the Prop 8 sponsors' appeal. On June 28, 2013, a stay of effect was removed from the federal district court decision and same-sex marriages were able to resume. Same-sex couples began marrying later that day. [5]

A chief judge is the highest-ranking judge of a court that has more than one judge and commonly presides over that court's hearings.

Vaughn Walker American judge

Vaughn Richard Walker served as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California from 1989 to 2011. Walker presided over the original trial in Hollingsworth v. Perry, where he found California's Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.

Due process Requirement that courts respect all legal rights owed to people

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

Before the passage of Proposition 8, California was only the second U.S. state (after Massachusetts) to allow same-sex marriage. Those marriages granted under the laws of other state governments, foreign and domestic, were legally recognized and retained state-level rights since 2008. [6] [7]

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.

A state government is the government of a country subdivision in a federal form of government, which shares political power with the federal or national government. A state government may have some level of political autonomy, or be subject to the direct control of the federal government. This relationship may be defined by a constitution.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government was prohibited from recognizing same-sex couples who were lawfully married under the laws of their state. The conflict between this definition and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule DOMA unconstitutional on June 26, 2013, in the case of United States v. Windsor.


From February 12 to March 11, 2004, under the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, officials of the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 4,000 same-sex couples despite it being illegal to do so at both the state and federal level. During the month that licenses were issued, couples traveled from all over the United States and from other countries to be married. On August 12, citing the Mayor's lack of authority to bypass state law, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were void. [8] Consolidated lawsuits against the State Government in favor of same-sex marriage which followed eventually reached the Supreme Court of California. On May 15, 2008, it overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage with the ruling In re Marriage Cases . [9] The four-to-three decision took effect on June 16, 2008. [10] Two weeks earlier, the initiative to override this result of the court decision qualified for the November election ballot. The Court declined to stay its decision until after the November elections. [11] Some reports suggested that out-of-state same-sex couples would marry in California prior to the 2008 elections because California does not require the marriage to be valid in the couple's home state.

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.

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.

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

The ballot initiative, Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act, [12] appeared on the California general election ballot in November 2008 and passed with a 52% majority. [13] [14] Support for Proposition 8 was not uncontroversial, with Mormons and the Mormon Church donating $20 million to campaign for its passage. [15] As for the opposition, the California Supreme Court heard several challenges to Proposition 8 in March 2009, [16] but ultimately upheld the amendment, though the over 18,000 couples that were married in the time before Prop 8 was passed remained valid.

California continues to allow domestic partnership. This grants same-sex couples almost all state-level rights and obligations of marriage [17] but does not apply to "federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states." However, since June 2015, same sex marriages are recognized and performed, as well as recognized by the Federal Government. [18] UCLA's Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy projected in June 2008 that about half of California's more than 100,000 same-sex couples would wed during the next three years and 68,000 out-of-state couples would travel to California to exchange vows. [19]

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.


AB 607

From the enactment of legislation in 1971 to replace gendered pronouns with gender-neutral pronouns, until 1977, California Civil Code § 4100 defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." This definition was uniformly interpreted as including only opposite-sex partners, but, because of worries that the language was unclear, Assembly Bill No. 607, authored by Assemblyman Bruce Nestande, was proposed and later passed to "prohibit persons of the same sex from entering lawful marriage."

Fears that the Civil Code would allow marriage between parties of the same sex had arisen due to a couple in Orange County who sought a marriage license post the passage of the Consenting Adult Sex Bill which repealed the criminality of homosexuality in California (effective 1976). While the 1971 legislation which had made nuptial references gender-neutral, the Orange County Clerks Association submitted a call to then-Assemblymember Bruce Nestande to clarify the law as it pertained to same-sex couples. The act amended the Civil Code to define marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

Opponents of the bill included Assemblyman Willie Brown (who authored the repeal of California's sodomy law in 1975) and Senator Milton Marks. The bill passed 23-5 in the state Senate and 68-2 in the Assembly. It was signed on August 17, 1977 by Governor Jerry Brown. [20] [21] [22] Since 1994, this language is found in § 300 of the Family Code, which in 2015 was repealed.

AB 167

AB 167, authored by Assemblyman John Burton, would've deleted gender requirements enacted in 1977. It failed to garner enough votes for passages and died in the Assembly. [23]

Proposition 22 (2000)

Following Senator Knight's failure to pass the California Defense of Marriage Act on two different occasions in the Legislature, Prop 22 was created as an initiative statute to add section 308.5 to the Family Code these two bills being: AB 1982 (1995) and SB 911(1997). [24]

Similar legislation included SB 2075 (Haynes, 1996) and AB 800 (Margett). Both proposals never saw passage. [25]

In the March 7, 2000 primary election, Proposition 22 was adopted by a vote of 61.4% to 38%, thus adding § 308.5 to the Family Code, largely replicating the 1977 enactment. The one-sentence code section explicitly defined the union of a man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage in the State of California. Proposition 22 was authored by State Senator William J. Knight, and the measure was dubbed the "Knight initiative" in an attempt to link it to the failed "Briggs Initiative" (Proposition 6 of 1978) that would have banned gays and lesbians from working as teachers in California's public schools. The California Supreme Court invalidated the results of Proposition 22 in 2008.

Proposition 22 was formally cited as The California Defense of Marriage Act. [26]

Legislative action on same-sex marriage

When California State Legislature opened the 2005-2006 session, Assembly member Mark Leno introduced Assembly Bill 19 (AB 19), which proposed legalizing same-sex marriage. The bill gained the support of then-Speaker Fabian Núñez among others. [27] Leno had introduced a similar bill in the prior session, but it died in committee. [28] Assembly committees reported out Assembly Bill 19 favorably, but the measure failed on the Assembly floor on June 2, 2005. [27] Later that month, Assembly member Patty Berg amended the text of her fisheries-research measure, Assembly Bill 849 (AB 849), which was already in the Senate, to the text of Leno's failed bill. [29] [30]

On September 2, 2005, the California Senate approved the bill 21-15 and on September 6, the California State Assembly followed suit with a vote of 41-35, making California's Legislature the first in the nation to approve a same-sex marriage bill without court pressure. The next day, September 7, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger indicated he would veto the bill, citing Proposition 22, which had passed with the approval of a majority of voters five years earlier. Like the statutes amended by AB 849, Prop 22 prohibited the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, but as an initiative statute, it was not affected by AB 849. The Legislature avoided physically delivering the bill to the Governor for over two weeks, during which time advocacy groups urged Schwarzenegger to change his mind. Ultimately, the bill was delivered on September 23 and vetoed on September 29, 2005. [31] Schwarzenegger stated he believed that same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts or another vote by the people via a statewide initiative or referendum. [32] [33] He argued that the Legislature's bill simply complicated the issue, as the constitutionality of Proposition 22 had not yet been determined, and its ultimate disposition would render AB 849 either unconstitutional (being in conflict with a valid voter initiative) or redundant (being guaranteed by the California Constitution itself, as construed by the courts). [34]

Shortly after the newly elected Assembly was sworn in, Leno resubmitted a similar bill on December 4, 2006. [35] AB 43 was passed by the Legislature in early September 2007, giving the Governor until October 14, 2007, to either sign or veto the bill. [36] Schwarzenegger had stated months before that he would veto AB 43 on the grounds that the issue at hand had already been voted on by California by way of Proposition 22. [37] The Governor followed through on his statement and on October 12, 2007, he vetoed AB 43. Schwarzenegger wrote in his veto statement that to solve the issue of gender-neutral marriage, the California Supreme Court needed to finish its rule on the challenge which had been made to Proposition 22. [38]

Proposition 8 (2008)

Months before the State Supreme Court's ruling, groups who opposed same-sex marriage began circulating initiative petitions. One petition, #07-0068 (titled the "California Marriage Protection Act" by its proponents and the "Limit on Marriage" amendment by the California Attorney General on the actual ballot) gathered an estimated 764,063 valid signatures and qualified for the November 4, 2008 ballot as Proposition 8. [13] The measure added § 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution to replace the newly unenforceable Family Code § 308.5. It superseded the part of the Supreme Court's holding that authorized the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Twelve other proposed amendments since 2004 had failed to qualify to be on the ballot. [39] The ability of the voters to remove a fundamental constitutional right by initiative amendment was challenged. [40] A lawsuit filed on those grounds asking for the removal of Proposition 8 from the ballot was dismissed on July 16, 2008.

On the day after the election, the results remained uncertified. With 100% of precincts reporting, the vote was 52.47% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.53% opposed, with a difference of about 504,000 votes; [41] as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remained to be counted. [42] The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign conceded defeat on Thursday, November 6, issuing a statement saying, "Tuesday's vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law." [43]

On Wednesday, November 5, 2008, three lawsuits were filed, challenging the validity of Proposition 8 on the grounds that revoking the right of same-sex couples to marry was a constitutional "revision" rather than an "amendment", and therefore required the prior approval of two-thirds of each house of the California State Legislature. Plaintiffs in the various suits included same-sex couples who had married or planned to marry, the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles and the county of Santa Clara. [44] The California Supreme Court heard several challenges to Proposition 8 and on May 26, 2009, upheld the proposition but did not overturn previous same-sex marriages which occurred following their ruling in June 2008 and before the day following the November 4 election.

Same-sex marriage supporters considered trying to get another ballot initiative to repeal Proposition 8 on the ballot in the 2012 election, but decided to wait. [45]

The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act

On October 12, 2009, following the passage of Proposition 8, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act (SB 54), legislation proposed by State Senator Mark Leno. [46] [47] The bill established that some of the same-sex marriages performed outside the state are also recognized by the state of California as "marriage", depending on the date of the union. [48]

After the California Supreme Court challenge following the passage of Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court justices affirmed that all same-sex marriages performed in California before the passage of Proposition 8 continued to be valid and recognized as "marriage". The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act also established that a same-sex marriage performed outside the state is recognized as "marriage" if it occurred before Proposition 8 took effect. This category also includes same-sex marriages performed before same-sex marriage became legal in California. [6] It also mandates the full legal recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully performed outside of California after the passage of Proposition 8, with the sole exception that the relationship cannot be designated with the word "marriage". [49] The law provides no label to be used in place of "marriage" to describe these relationships; they are not "domestic partnerships". [6] The resumption of same-sex marriage in California on June 28, 2013 effectively supersedes this law with respect to out-of-state same-sex marriages.

SB 1306 (2014)

Introduced by Senator Mark Leno on February 21, 2014, SB 1306 repealed Sections 300 (AB 607, 1977), 308 (The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, author by Sen. Leno), 308.5 (Prop 22, California Defense of Marriage Act) of the Family Code, and amended Section 300 to be gender-neutral among other sections as well. [50] The legislation removed the statutory reference to marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" from the states' Family Code and updated the law with gender-neutral terms to apply to same-sex marriages as well as heterosexual ones. [51]

During its passage, some concern was expressed that, by repealing the California Defense of Marriage Act, SB 1306 breached the separation of powers as the Legislature would be repealing an initiative passed by the voters. However, the consensus of the Assembly Judiciary Committee was that the voters are no more able to pass an unconstitutional, and subsequently enjoined, statute anymore than the Legislature can. In light of In Re Marriage Cases and Hollingsworth v. Perry , which collectively forbade the enforcement of any law which would prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, it was determined by the Assembly Judiciary Committee that the Legislature has the capacity to repeal enjoined statutes.

SB 1306 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 5-2 on April 8, 2014. On May 1, 2014, the California State Senate passed the bill on a 25-10 vote. [52] On June 30, SB 1306 passed the Assembly, in a 51-11 vote. [53] It was signed by the Governor on July 7, 2014 and took effect on January 1, 2015. [51] [54] The statute definition of marriage in California is now the following: [55]

Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.

SB 1005 (2016)

In April 2016, the state Senate voted 34-2 to approve SB 1005, a bill introduced by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson that updated California law similarly to SB 1306. [56] The California lower house approved the bill by a vote of 63-1 with amendments. It thus went back to the state Senate, which approved it by a vote of 34-0. The bill became both engrossed and enrolled meaning it passed both houses in the same form. The bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, and took effect on January 1, 2017. [57]

Court challenges

Trial court decision

In February 1993, Benjamin and Marcial Cable-McCarthy submitted an application for a marriage license to the Los Angeles County clerk's office, which was rejected. They had previously changed their names to Cable-McCarthy. [58] Their lawsuit against the clerks office, filed in April 1993, was the first case challenging California's laws on same-sex marriage. [59] However, the case was dismissed in 2nd District State Court of Appeal in Los Angeles on May 22, 1993. [60]

In February 2004, litigants filed five civil lawsuits in San Francisco Superior Court and one case in Los Angeles Superior Court. The parties included individuals and organizations opposed to same-sex marriage who sought to stop San Francisco from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The City and County of San Francisco and numerous individuals sued the state of California seeking to overturn Proposition 22, the existing state law that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Eventually, all six cases were coordinated (In re Marriage Cases) and assigned to San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. On March 14, 2005, Judge Kramer ruled that California statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional. [61] The court held there was no rational connection between forbidding same-sex marriage and any legitimate state interest and the opposite-sex requirements impermissibly discriminated based on gender.

Appellate court decision

The state and organizations opposed to same-sex marriage appealed. Division Three of the First District Court of Appeal held extended oral argument on the cases on July 10, 2006, before a three-judge panel. In a 2-to-1 decision, the appellate court overturned the lower court. [62] Writing for the majority, Presiding Justice William R. McGuiness found: The marriage statutes do not discriminate based on gender; the state's interests in "preserving the traditional definition of marriage" and "carrying out the expressed wishes of a majority of Californians" were sufficient to preserve the existing law; and challenges from the two groups opposed to same-sex marriage had to be dismissed because they lacked standing in any actual controversy on which the court could rule.

The majority emphasized that it was not the role of the court to determine whether the "traditional definition" of marriage should be maintained. "The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions," McGuiness writes. "That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat."

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice J. Anthony Kline (Presiding Justice of Division Two, sitting by designation because two Justices had recused themselves) described the court's reasoning as "circular." He wrote that the majority's indifference to the reasons why marriage is a fundamental right unintentionally "diminish the humanity of the lesbians and gay men whose rights are defeated." Both justices in the majority commented at length on Justice Kline's dissent.

Supreme Court of California review

In November 2006, several parties petitioned the Supreme Court of California to review the decision. [63] Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked the Supreme Court to take up the case. [64] In December 2006, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to review all six cases and held oral argument on March 4, 2008, consolidating the cases as In re Marriage Cases . [63]

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court struck down California's existing statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in a 4-3 ruling. [65] The judicial ruling overturned the one-man, one-woman marriage law which the California Legislature had passed in 1977 and Proposition 22. After the ruling, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement repeating his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would override the ruling.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, cited the Court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp where the state's interracial marriage ban was held unconstitutional. It 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. Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar, and Carlos R. Moreno concurred. [9] It is the first state high court in the country to do so. [66] The Massachusetts State Supreme Court, by contrast, did not find sexual orientation to be a protected class, and instead voided its same-sex marriage ban on rational basis review. [67]

After the announcement, the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter alia, asked for a stay of the ruling. In a one-page order on June 4, 2008, the court denied all petitions for rehearing or to reconsider the May 15 ruling and rejected moves to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November election, when Californians voted on a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision. As a result, same-sex marriages took place starting in mid-June. Chief Justice Ronald George and Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno, voted for the resolution, while dissenting or voting to reconsider the judgment, were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan. [68] The order stated, "The decision filed on May 15, 2008, will become final on June 16, 2008, at 5 p.m." [10] San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that marriages would be held "5:01" on June 16. [69] [70] The final stage of the case was the issuance of a writ of mandate by the Superior Court to the Registrar of Vital Statistics on June 19, 2008. [71]

On June 20, 2008, gay rights groups filed suit before the California Supreme Court seeking to remove the initiative from the November ballot; their lawsuit was later dismissed on July 16, 2008. [72] They argued that the changes would constitute a revision to the California Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before being placed before voters, rather than a mere amendment, which does not require involvement by the Legislature. They further argued that the original petitions, which were circulated before the May 15 court decision, were misleading because the petitions said the initiative would not change the marriage laws and would have no fiscal impact. [73] [74]

Prior to the election date, backers of the proposition also filed a lawsuit after state Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the title of the Proposition 8 initiative from "Limit on Marriage" to "Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry". [75] On August 8, 2008, Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that "The Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry", so the new name would appear on the ballots. [76]

On the day of the Strauss v. Horton decisionin which the California State Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 as a lawful amendment of the state Constitutionthe American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 under the U.S. Constitution in a case known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger . Judge Vaughn R. Walker ordered a full trial which began in January 2010. It addressed questions as wide-ranging as whether being gay diminishes one's contribution to society, affects one's ability to raise children, impairs judgment, or constitutes a mental disorder. [77] Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, violating both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and on August 12, 2010, had scheduled to deny a motion to stay the ruling throughout the appeals process. On August 16, 2010, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion to stay, ordered expedited briefing on the merits of the appeal, and directed the parties to brief the issue of why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing. [78] On August 17, 2010, the same Ninth Circuit panel ordered expedited briefing on the Imperial County appeal. [79] The court also ordered both appeals calendared for oral argument during the week of December 6, 2010, in San Francisco. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Proposition 8 supporters did not have standing for their appeal, and thus ordered the Ninth Circuit to void their ruling, leaving Walker's decision standing. [80] Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, two of the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger , were married shortly afterward, making them the first same-sex couple to be married in California since Proposition 8 was overturned. [81]

Proposition 8 proponents argued that the district court's injunction is applicable only to the two couples who are the plaintiffs in the case or, at most, applies to the two counties whose clerks were named as defendants. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, however, issued an analysis that the district court's injunction applies statewide and binds upon all 58 of California's counties based on the interpretation of California Supreme Court's decision in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, [82] stating that county clerks are state officials under supervision of Department of Public Health for the limited purpose of issuing marriage licenses and are thus bound by the injunction. Governor Brown then directed all county clerks to comply with district court ruling. [83]

On July 12, 2013, Proposition 8 proponents petitioned California Supreme Court in case Hollingsworth v. O'Connell (CA S.Ct docket: S211990), invoking court's original jurisdiction under Article VI §10 of the California Constitution, asking the CA Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandate and immediate stay or injunction ordering county clerks to enforce Proposition 8. Arguing that the district court lacks authority to grant relief beyond the named plaintiffs or, even if the district court has such authority, its injunction only binds to two county clerks who are named defendants. They also argue that Article III §3.5 of California Constitution prohibits Administrative officials from declaring a law unconstitutional or unenforceable or refuse to enforce the law unless an appellate court has made such determination. Since US Supreme Court's ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry held that Proposition 8 proponents lack legal standing to appeal district court's decision, the decision of the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit was vacated with no legal effect or precedent.

California Supreme Court ordered to parties to brief on the merits and whether the stay should be issued [84] and on July 15, it denied the application for stay. [85] On July 19, San Diego County Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg Jr. filed a petition [Dronenburg v. Brown (CA S.Ct docket: S212172)] asking for the California Supreme Court halt the issuance of marriage license to same-sex couples and application to stay during litigation which the court denied on July 23. [86] He later withdrew his petition on August 2. [87] On August 14, 2013, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandate. [88] The last attempt to resume Proposition 8 failed and the case is to be considered closed. [89]

Legality of 2004 San Francisco marriages

City officials in San Francisco claimed that although the 2004 marriages were prohibited by state law, the state law was invalidated by the Equal Protection Clause. The Mayor echoed this view, permitting the marriages because he believed the state law was unconstitutional. However, legislators and groups opposing same-sex marriages quickly reacted, filing a suit and requesting a court order to prevent the city from performing the ceremonies. Additionally, the California state agency that records marriages stated that altered forms, including any marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, would not be registered. The legal validity of the marriages was tested in the courts, and the marriages were ultimately voided by the state Supreme Court.

Officials in Berkeley and Oakland, in nearby Alameda County, expressed interest in joining San Francisco, [90] [91] but were unable to do so because marriage licenses are handled at a county, rather than at a city, level. San Francisco was able to issue its own licenses because San Francisco is both a city and a county.

Marriage statistics

Example of same-sex marriage license issued in San Francisco. SF marriage license.png
Example of same-sex marriage license issued in San Francisco.

Marriage licenses were issued to 4,037 same-sex couples in 2004 before the state Supreme Court issued its stay. [92] During the same period, the San Francisco City Hall issued 103 opposite-sex marriage licenses.

Of those same-sex marriage licenses issued, 82 couples either decided not to go through with a marriage or failed to register their marriage with the county before the state Supreme Court stay was issued, meaning 3,955 completed same-sex marriages were registered in the county. [93]

By reviewing first names of applicants, San Francisco officials estimated that 57% of the same-sex married couples were women. Demographic information gleaned from the registered licenses also shows the newlywed same-sex couples were older: More than 74% were over age 35, while 69% had at least one college degree. [92]

According to figures released March 17, 2004 by San Francisco County Assessor Mabel Teng, although 91.4% of the licenses were granted to couples living in California, other couples came from every state in the United States except for Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia and Wyoming. [92]

Of the other states, the top five states represented included 32 couples each from Washington and Oregon, 24 from Nevada, 20 from New York and 16 from Florida. International same-sex couples, 17 in all, came from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom and Venezuela.

Public opinion

Public opinion for same-sex marriage in California
Poll sourceDate(s)
Margin of
% support% opposition% no opinion
Public Religion Research Institute April 5-December 23, 2017 7,260?66%23%11%
Public Religion Research Institute May 18, 2016-January 10, 2017 9,640?66%24%10%
Public Religion Research Institute April 29, 2015-January 7, 2016 7,671?60%30%9%
Edison Research November 4, 2014??61%35%4%
Public Policy Institute of California October 12–19, 20141,704 adult residents± 3.5%56%36%8%
New York Times/CBS News/YouGov September 20 – October 1, 20147,943 likely voters± 1.6%58%32%12%
Public Religion Research Institute April 2, 2014-January 4, 2015 4,506?61%31%8%
Public Religion Research Institute November 12 – December 18, 2013408± 5.6%59%37%5%
Public Policy Institute of California September 10–17, 20131,703 adult residents± 3.7%61%34%5%
1,102 likely voters± 4.5%64%32%4%
Public Policy Institute of California May 14–20, 20131,704 adult residents± 3.8%56%38%6%
1,129 likely voters± 4.6%59%36%5%
Field Poll February 5–17, 2013834 adults± 4.2%61%32%7%
Public Policy Institute of California January 15–22, 20131,704 adult residents± 3.5%53%41%6%
1,116 likely voters± 4.2%54%40%5%
Public Policy Institute of California May 14–20, 2012894 likely voters± 3.5%56%37%7%
Public Policy Institute of California February 21–28, 20122,001 adult residents± 3.4%52%41%6%
859 likely voters± 4.2%56%38%6%
Field Poll February 2–18, 20121,003 adults± 4.5%59%34%7%
Public Policy Polling November 10–13, 2011500 voters± 4.4%48%43%9%
Public Policy Institute of California September 6–13, 20112,002 adult residents± 3.6%53%42%5%
958 likely voters± 4.2%53%42%4%
Public Policy Polling January 28–30, 2011892 voters± 3.3%51%40%10%
Public Policy Polling September 14–16, 2010630 likely voters± 3.9%46%44%10%
Field Poll June 22 – July 5, 20101,390 adults± 2.8%51%42%7%
Public Policy Institute of California March 9–16, 20102,002 adult residents± 2%50%45%5%
1,102 likely voters± 3%49%45%6%
Public Policy Institute of California March 10–17, 20092,004 adult residents± 2%44%49%7%
987 likely voters± 3%45%49%6%
Field Poll February 20 – March 1, 2009761 adults± 3.6%49%44%7%
Public Policy Institute of California November 5–16, 20082,003 adult residents± 2%47%48%5%
Public Policy Institute of California October 12–19, 20082,004 adult residents± 2%44%50%6%
Public Policy Institute of California August 12–19, 20082,001 adult residents± 2%45%48%7%
1,047 likely voters± 3%47%47%6%
Field Poll May 17–26, 20081,052 adults± 3.2%51%42%7%
Public Policy Institute of California June 12–19, 20072,003 adult residents± 2%45%49%6%
983 likely voters± 3%46%48%6%
Public Policy Institute of California September 13–20, 20062,003 adult residents± 2%44%48%8%
1091 likely voters± 3%47%46%7%
Field Poll February 12–26, 20061,000 adults± 3.2%43%51%6%
Field Poll 2006??44%50%6%
Public Policy Institute of California August 8 – 15, 20052,004 adult residents± 2%44%48%8%
988 likely voters± 3%46%46%8%
Field Poll May 18–24, 2004745 adults± 5.2%43%53%4%
Field Poll February 18–22, 2004958 adults± 3.3%44%50%6%
Public Policy Institute of California February 8–16, 20042,004 adult residents± 2%44%50%6%
1,013 likely voters± 3%43%51%6%
Field Poll August 10–13, 20031,036 adults± 5.8%42%50%8%
Public Policy Institute of California January 2–10, 20001,031 likely voters± 3.5%38%55%7%
Field Poll February 11–17, 19971,045 adults± 3.3%38%56%6%
Field Poll 1997??39%55%6%
Field Poll 1985??30%62%8%
Field Poll 1977??28%59%13%


Same-sex couples gather at San Francisco City Hall during Valentine's Day weekend 2004 to apply for marriage licenses. SF-City Hall Line SS-Marriage group.JPG
Same-sex couples gather at San Francisco City Hall during Valentine's Day weekend 2004 to apply for marriage licenses.
The line of same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses stretched for blocks around San Francisco's City Hall in February 2004. SF-City Hall Line SS-Marriage.JPG
The line of same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses stretched for blocks around San Francisco's City Hall in February 2004.
A same-sex marriage solemnized in San Francisco City Hall on June 28, 2013, just hours after the Ninth Circuit stay was lifted. Gay Marriages at SF City Hall.jpg
A same-sex marriage solemnized in San Francisco City Hall on June 28, 2013, just hours after the Ninth Circuit stay was lifted.

See also


  1. "Election Results - November 4, 2008 - California Secretary of State". Archived from the original on July 23, 2008. Retrieved December 4, 2008.
  2. 1 2 "U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Prop. 8 Case". American Foundation for Equal Rights . Retrieved July 31, 2012.
  3. Liptak, Adam (December 7, 2012). "Justices to Hear Two Challenges on Gay Marriage". New York Times. Archived from the original on December 9, 2012. Retrieved December 8, 2012.
  4. "Same-sex marriages start in California". SCOTUSblog. June 28, 2013. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  5. Winter, Michael; Weise, Elizabeth (June 28, 2013). "Same-sex marriages resume in California". Retrieved June 30, 2013.
  6. 1 2 3 "SB 54 and Same-Sex Couples Who Marry Outside of California" (PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  7. "California to recognize some out-of-state gay marriages". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  8. "THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: One Year Later", Rona Maresh, San Francisco Chronicle, February 2, 2005
  9. 1 2 "Text of the decision in In re Marriage Cases" (PDF). Supreme Court of California. May 15, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 25, 2010. Retrieved June 5, 2008.
  10. 1 2 "California Supreme Court Denies Rehearing and Stay in Marriage Cases" (PDF). June 4, 2008. Retrieved June 4, 2008.
  11. "CA Court Refuses to Stay Gay Marriage". June 4, 2008. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  12. "Anti-gay activists abandon effort to rewrite California amendment". Washington Blade. Archived from the original on September 26, 2008.
  13. 1 2 "Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election" (PDF) (Press release). Secretary of State of California. June 2, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 15, 2008.
  14. California Politics - Marriage initiative will go to voters - [ dead link ]
  15. Ashton Emerald, The $20 Million Mormon Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage: The Why Behind LDS Opposition to Prop 8
  16. Bob Egelko (March 10, 2009). "Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 26, 2009.
  17. In Re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court Decision, footnote 24, pages 42-44,
  18. "Recognize Gay Couples, Say 60% of Americans". Archived from the original on November 17, 2006. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  19. Penni Crabtree (June 12, 2008). "Exchanging vows, and cash". San Diego Union Tribune .
  20. "The Bakersfield Californian › 19 August 1977 › Page 3". August 19, 1977. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
  21. Carla Marinucci (January 9, 2009). "Brown's switch on Prop. 8 reflects times". SFGate. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
  22. "The San Bernardino County Sun › 12 August 1977 › Page 5". August 12, 1977. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
  23. Homosexual anti-bias, marriage bills MONDAY January 28, 1991 sure to cause a stir
  24. SB 911
  25. AB 54
  26. Senate Bill No. 1306, repealing the California Defense of Marriage Act
  27. 1 2 "Assembly Bill 19 (2005-2006) Legislative Documents". Legislative Counsel of California.
  28. "Assembly Bill 1967 (2003-2004) Legislative Documents". Legislative Counsel of California.
  29. "Assembly Bill 849 (2005-2006) Legislative Documents". Legislative Counsel of California.
  30. "Committee on Rules: AB 849 Author's Amendments" (PDF). Senate Daily Journal. 2005-06: 1714. June 28, 2005.
  31. Buchanan, Wyatt (September 13, 2005). "Gay rights advocates still trying to change Schwarzenegger's mind". San Francisco Chronicle.
  32. Ritter, John (September 7, 2005). "Calif. governor to veto same-sex marriage bill". USA Today. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  33. "Statement by Gubernatorial Press Secretary Margita Thompson on AB 849".
  34. "Text of decision in In re Marriage Cases, Footnote 17, pg. 29-30" (PDF). Supreme Court of California. May 15, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 25, 2010. Retrieved June 5, 2008.
  35. AB 43, Bill Documents
  36. "Calif. Leg. Again Passes Gay Marriage Bill]". September 7, 2007.
  37. "Schwarzenegger vows to veto marriage bill". The Bay Area Reporter Online. February 15, 2007. Retrieved June 5, 2008.
  38. "Assembly Bill 43 - Veto".
  39. "Initiative Measures - Office of the California Attorney General". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  40. Kevin Norte (May 21, 2008). "In My Opinion: Is The Proposed "Limit On Marriage" Initiative Too Late?". Metropolitan News-Enterprise.
  41. "Election Night Results - CA Secretary of State". California Secretary of State. November 5, 2008. Archived from the original on February 10, 2009. Retrieved November 5, 2008.
  42. Leff, Lisa (November 5, 2008). "Calif. gay marriage ban vote undecided". Associated Press. Retrieved November 5, 2008.
  43. "Final Statement from No on Prop 8 Campaign". No On 8, Equality for All. November 6, 2008. Retrieved November 6, 2008.
  44. Maura Dolan and Tami Abdollah (November 6, 2008). "Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 6, 2008.
  45. "EQCA -- Win Marriage Back".
  46. McGuire, Bobby (October 12, 2009). "Schwarzenegger signs Milk Day, marriage recognition into law". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  47. Schwarzenegger signs gay rights bills Archived October 14, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  48. "California bill to recognize some same-sex marriages". CNN. October 12, 2009. Archived from the original on July 1, 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2012.
  49. Leno. "Text of SB 54". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  50. "SB 1306 - California 2013-2014 Regular Session". Open States. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
  51. 1 2 "New law updates state code to use gender-neutral marriage terms". Los Angeles Times. July 7, 2014.
  52. "Calif. Senate advances bill to remove 'man and woman' from marriage laws". LGBTQ Nation. May 1, 2014.
  53. "Legislation updates California marriage laws". The Sacramento Bee. June 30, 2014. Archived from the original on July 14, 2014.
  54. "California governor signs bill to update state's marriage laws". LGBTQ Nation. July 7, 2014.
  55. SB-1306 Marriage Today's Law As Amended
  56. "Jackson Bill To Update Laws To Reflect Marriage Equality Passes Off Senate Floor". Hannah-Beth Jackson. April 14, 2016.
  57. SB-1005 Marriage. (2015-2016), California Legislature
  58. Abcarian, Robin (1992-07-31). "For Some Adoptees, a Time to Be Courageous". Los Angeles Times. ISSN   0458-3035 . Retrieved 2017-03-27.
  59. Kelleher, Kathleen (1993-04-21). "Gay Couple Challenge State Laws on Marriage : Courts: They sue county in effort to obtain license. Attorney says test is first of California law". Los Angeles Times. ISSN   0458-3035 . Retrieved 2017-03-27.
  60. "WEST HOLLYWOOD : Court Denies Gay Couple's Marriage License Petition". Los Angeles Times. 1993-05-22. ISSN   0458-3035 . Retrieved 2017-03-27.
  61. "NCLR: In re Marriage Cases". Archived from the original on October 13, 2007. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  62. "First Appellate court decision in In re Marriage Cases" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 6, 2006.
  63. 1 2 "California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information". January 1, 1970. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  64. "Bill List". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  65. Egelko, Bob (May 16, 2008). "State's top court strikes down marriage ban". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved October 30, 2012.
  66. Liptak, Adam (May 15, 2008). "California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage". New York Times. Retrieved May 16, 2008.
  67. "Text of the Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health" (PDF).
  68. Maura Dolan, Jessica Garrison (June 5, 2008). "Calif. court refuses to stall gay marriage". Chicago Tribune . Retrieved May 17, 2012.
  69. McKinley, Jesse (June 5, 2008). "Court Won't Delay Same-Sex Marriages". The New York Times. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  70. Dolan, Maura; Garrison, Jessica (June 5, 2008). "California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage". LA Times online. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  71. "San Francisco Superior Court Issues Orders to Implement Supreme Court Decision Making State Marriage Law Gender Neutral" (PDF). June 20, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 24, 2008. Retrieved June 20, 2008.
  72. Dolan, Maura (July 17, 2008). "Bid to ban gay marriage will stay on ballot, California Supreme Court rules". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 21, 2008.
  73. Egelko, Bob (June 20, 2008). "Gay marriage backers want ban issue off ballot". San Francisco Chronicle.
  74. "Gay rights groups ask California Supreme Court to block initiative banning same-sex marriage". Los Angeles Times. June 21, 2008. Archived from the original on June 26, 2008. Retrieved June 22, 2008.
  75. Ruling expected today on gay marriage ballot, San Jose Mercury News, August 8, 2008
  76. Judge refuses to order change in Prop. 8 title San Francisco Chronicle, August 9, 2008
  77. Egelko, Bob (August 19, 2009). "Judge sets January trial for Prop. 8 lawsuit". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved August 19, 2009.
  78. Ninth Circuit: "Order," August 16, 2010. Retrieved August 16, 2010
  79. Ninth Circuit: "Order," August 17, 2010. Retrieved August 17, 2010
  80. "Supreme Court dismisses California's Proposition 8 appeal". June 27, 2013. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  81. "County Clerks Ready for Marriage License Rush". June 28, 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2013.
  82. "Attorney General Letter re Prop 8" (PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  83. "Governor Brown Directs California Department of Public Health to Notify Counties that Same-Sex Marriages Must Commence". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  84. "CA-Supreme Court-Order-7-12-13" (PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  85. "Court Docket: S211990". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  86. "Dronenburg-stay-denied-7-23-13" (PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  87. 1 2 "County clerk withdraws Prop. 8 petition". August 2, 2013. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  88. "IN THE SUPREME COURT IN CALIFORNIA" (PDF). August 14, 2013. Retrieved April 5, 2014.
  89. ""Proposition 8" case ends". SCOTUSblog. August 14, 2013. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  90. "Oakland City Council: Resolution No. 78483" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 15, 2017. Retrieved November 14, 2017.
  91. Council Items through 2003 to 2008
  92. 1 2 3 Murphy, Dean E. (March 18, 2004). "San Francisco Married 4,037 Same-Sex Pairs From 46 States". New York Times . Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  93. "Timeline of same-sex marriage in California". San Francisco Chronicle. February 8, 2012. Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  94. "San Jose recognizes gay marriage". Chicago Tribune. March 10, 2004. Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  95. "Herrera Files Briefs With Supreme Court on Issue of Municipal Authority for Same-Sex Licenses". Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco. March 11, 2004. Archived from the original on February 10, 2012. Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  96. "California Same Sex Marriage Cases". C-SPAN. May 25, 2004. Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  97. "CALIFORNIA COURT NULLIFIES SAME-SEX MARRIAGES". PBS News Hour. August 12, 2004. Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  98. "Marriage Cases" (PDF). Superior Court of California, San Francisco. March 14, 2005. Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  99. Dolan, Maura (May 16, 2008). "California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  100. Lin II, Rong-Gong (June 13, 2008). "The first bells ring at 5:01 p.m. Monday". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  101. Lindenberger, Michael (January 5, 2010). "A Gay-Marriage Lawsuit Dares to Make Its Case". Time . Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  102. "Statement of Vote: 2008 General Election" (PDF). California Secretary of State. December 13, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 18, 2012. Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  103. McKinley, Jesse (May 27, 2009). "Bush v. Gore Foes Join to Fight Gay Marriage Ban". New York Times . Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  104. Egelko, Bob (May 27, 2009). "Prop. 8 stands; more ballot battles ahead". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved February 21, 2012.
  105. Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban in California
  106. "Gay marriage appeal notice filed, long battle ahead". Reuters. August 5, 2010. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  107. Paul Elias (August 7, 2010). "Schwarzenegger: Let same-sex weddings resume now". Associated Press. Retrieved August 22, 2011.
  108. Devin Dwyer (August 12, 2010). "Gay Marriages Remain Temporarily on Hold, Judge Rules". ABC News . Retrieved February 21, 2011.
  110. Goodwin, Liz (February 7, 2012). "Prop. 8 overturned in California, court says state can't ban gay marriage". Yahoo. Retrieved March 1, 2012.
  111. Nagourney, Adam (February 7, 2012). "Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California". Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  112. "Order" (PDF). U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. June 5, 2012. Retrieved June 5, 2012.
  113. Mintz, Howard (June 5, 2012). "California's Proposition 8 case headed to U.S. Supreme Court". San Jose Mercury News . Retrieved June 5, 2012.
  114. Gullo, Karen; Andrew Harris (February 10, 2012). "California Gay Marriage Case May Be Headed to Supreme Court". Bloomberg Businessweek . Retrieved May 20, 2012.
  115. Leff, Lisa (June 5, 2012). "Prop 8 To The Supreme Court? California Gay Marriage Ban Backers Look Ahead". HuffPost San Francisco . Retrieved June 9, 2012.
  116. Dolan, Maura (June 28, 2013). "Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 29, 2013.
  117. "Prop 8 challengers wed in California after stay is lifted". June 28, 2013. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
  118. "California gay marriage opponents act to re-impose ban". BBC News. June 29, 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2013.
  119. Fieldstadt, Elisha (June 30, 2013). "Justice Kennedy denies motion to halt gay marriage in California". NBC News.
  120. Williams, Pete (July 12, 2013). "Prop. 8 backers make long-shot bid to stop same-sex marriage in California". NBC NEWS.
  121. "Prop 8 Sponsors Ask California High Court To Stop Same-Sex Marriages". KCBS. July 12, 2013.
  122. Levine, Dan (July 15, 2013). "California Supreme Court refuses to stop gay weddings". Reuters.
  123. "San Diego County Clerk Seeks to Stop Gay Marriages". New York Times. July 20, 2013.
  124. Dolan, Maura (July 23, 2013). "California Supreme Court again refuses to stop gay marriage". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 12, 2013.
  125. Johnson, Chris (August 14, 2013). "California Supreme Court rejects attempt to revive Prop 8". The Washington Blade. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
  126. Williams, Pete (August 14, 2013). "California top court refuses to stop gay marriage".

Related Research Articles

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

Many laws in the history of the United States have addressed marriage and the rights of married people. Common themes addressed by these laws include polygamy, interracial marriage, divorce, and same-sex marriage.

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.

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.

This page contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage and legal recognition of same-sex couples worldwide. It begins with the history of same-sex unions during ancient times, which consisted of unions ranging from informal and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions, and continues to modern-day state-recognized same-sex marriage. Events concerning same-sex marriages becoming legal in a country or in a country's state are listed in bold.

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.

In response to court action in a number of states, the United States federal government and a number of state legislatures passed or attempted to pass legislation either prohibiting or allowing same-sex marriage or other types of same-sex unions.

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.

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.

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".

American Foundation for Equal Rights

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) is a nonprofit organization established in 2009 to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

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.

The history of LGBT residents in California, while very likely spanning centuries prior to the 20th, has become increasingly visible recently with the successes of the LGBT rights movement. In spite of the strong development of early LGBT villages in the state, pro-LGBT activists in California have campaigned against nearly 170 years of especially harsh prosecutions and punishments toward gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people.

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. organization is 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 and a woman." Beginning in 2001 as Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund holding the domain name, the organization reformed in 2005 as a coalition to sponsor California Proposition 8, called the California Marriage Protection Act, and was successful in placing it on the ballot in 2008. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution, putting a halt to same-sex marriages in California for nearly two years until the proposition was overturned as unconstitutional. While it was in effect, defended the amendment in a series of legal challenges. Ron Prentice is the executive director.

This page contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.

The history of same-sex marriage in the United States dates from the early 1970s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention though they proved unsuccessful. The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Miike that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act.