## Facts

- Six consolidated actions challenged California statutes limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, including Family Code § 300 (marriage defined as between a man and a woman) and § 308.5 (Proposition 22’s codification of that limitation).
- Plaintiffs included same-sex couples denied marriage licenses, related organizations, and the City and County of San Francisco; defendants were state officials charged with enforcing the marriage laws, with private groups intervening to defend the limitation.
- After earlier litigation concerning San Francisco’s issuance of marriage licenses without judicial authorization, coordinated constitutional challenges proceeded in trial court.
- The trial court held the opposite-sex limitation unconstitutional under the California Constitution.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and upheld the statutory scheme.
- The California Supreme Court granted review and decided the consolidated appeals in a 4–3 opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether the California Constitution protects a fundamental right to marry that includes same-sex couples.
2. Whether classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny under the California Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
3. Whether limiting the designation “marriage” to opposite-sex couples while providing same-sex couples the separate status of “domestic partnership” satisfies state constitutional guarantees of equal protection, due process, and privacy.
4. Whether the asserted state interests (including tradition and child-rearing rationales) are compelling and whether the exclusion is necessary to achieve them.

## Decision

- The court reversed the Court of Appeal and held the challenged provisions unconstitutional under the California Constitution.
- The court recognized sexual orientation as a suspect classification for state equal protection purposes, triggering strict scrutiny.
- The court held that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the state constitution’s liberty and privacy protections.
- The court concluded that reserving “marriage” for opposite-sex couples while consigning same-sex couples to “domestic partnerships” denied equal dignity and respect and violated equal protection and the fundamental right to marry.
- Applying strict scrutiny, the court held the exclusion was not necessary to serve a compelling state interest and invalidated the statutory opposite-sex limitation, including Proposition 22’s codified restriction, to the extent it barred same-sex couples from civil marriage.

## Legal Principles

- Under the California Constitution, the fundamental right to marry protects the choice to form an officially recognized committed family relationship and is not confined to opposite-sex couples.
- Sexual orientation is a suspect classification under California equal protection analysis; differential treatment on that basis is subject to strict scrutiny.
- A separate legal status that withholds the designation “marriage,” even if paired with similar legal incidents, can violate equal protection by imposing unequal social standing and denial of equal dignity and respect.
- Strict scrutiny requires the government to show a compelling interest and that the challenged measure is necessary to achieve that interest; tradition or majoritarian approval alone is insufficient.
- State constitutional privacy interests may be implicated where a legal status effectively discloses sexual orientation in circumstances where “marriage” would not.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court held that the state constitution guarantees same-sex couples both equal protection and a fundamental right to marry, and that limiting “marriage” to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only domestic partnerships fails strict scrutiny and is unconstitutional.


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