In re Marriage Cases - 43 Cal. 4th 757, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008)

Rule:

The distinction drawn by Fam. Code, §§ 300, 308.5, between the designation of the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the designation available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. Affording access to the marriage designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation, realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples.

Facts:

In a coordinated proceeding, the trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, challengers to California's marriage statutes, and held that the statutes violated the California Constitution insofar as they limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and against defendant proponents. The challengers were the City and County of San Francisco, same-sex couples, and organizations supporting those parties. The statutes were defended by the state and private groups. The Court of Appeal of California reversed the trial court's ruling on the constitutional issue. The California Supreme Court granted further review.

Issue:

Were California's marriage statutes violated the California Constitution insofar as they limited marriage to opposite-sex couples?

Answer:

Yes. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and remanded the matter for further action.

Conclusion:

The court held that Fam. Code, §§ 300 and 308.5, were unconstitutional insofar as their provisions drew a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and excluded the latter from access to the designation of marriage. The court ruled that the right to marry, as embodied in Cal. Const. art. I, §§ 1 and 7, guaranteed same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples, including the right to choose one's life partner. The statutes posed a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples equal dignity and respect, a core element of the fundamental right to marry. The court further held that the statutes also violated California's Equal Protection Clause. In finding that sexual orientation was a suspect classification, the court explained that immutability was not invariably required, rather, the most important factors were historically invidious and prejudicial treatment and a current recognition by society that the characteristic in question generally had no relationship to the ability to perform or contribute to society. The state interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples was not a compelling state interest.