Calif. Supreme Court’s Rejection of Same-sex Marriage

Filed Under Court Cases, Gay Marriage, Legal | May 26th, 2009 

Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Prop. 8, But Finds Existing Marriages of Same-Sex Couples Valid.

California Supreme Court NewsSan Francisco, Calif. — The California Supreme Court, by a 6-1 vote, today rejected a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 4, 2008 election that added a section to the California Constitution providing “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The court’s opinion resolves the petitions in Strauss v. Horton, S168047, Tyler v. State of California, S168066, and City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078. The opinion is available online at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/ .

The court further unanimously held that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow, limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757.

The court also unanimously held that the new constitutional provision applies only prospectively, and does not affect the continued validity of the estimated 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples that occurred prior to November 5, 2008, when the new constitutional provision took effect. The challenges to Proposition 8 before the court were filed by numerous same-sex couples and public entities and were based solely on the provisions of the California Constitution and did not raise any federal constitutional claim.

The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, and was joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin, and Carol A. Corrigan. In addition to signing the majority opinion, Justice Kennard filed a separate concurring opinion.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the result reached by the majority opinion but disagreeing in part with its analysis. Justice Carlos R. Moreno filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, agreeing with the majority’s conclusion that Proposition 8 applies only prospectively but concluding that Proposition 8 is invalid because it is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.

Source: California Supreme Court

Related Links:
- More on the Proposition 8 Cases at the California Courts Web site.
- California Courts Opinion Page.

Related Post: Video Responses To Prop. 8 Ruling