## Facts

- The California Supreme Court previously held that same-sex couples had a state constitutional right to marry under California’s privacy, due process, and equal protection provisions.
- California voters subsequently approved Proposition 8, adding a constitutional provision stating that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
- Proposition 8 took effect the day after the election.
- Approximately 18,000 same-sex couples married in the period between the earlier decision recognizing same-sex marriage and Proposition 8’s effective date.
- Same-sex couples, individuals, and local government entities filed original writ petitions in the California Supreme Court challenging Proposition 8’s validity and seeking clarification of its effect on existing marriages.
- State officials responsible for administering marriage laws were named as respondents, and Proposition 8’s proponents intervened to defend the measure.

## Issues

1. Whether Proposition 8 was an invalid constitutional “revision” (and therefore beyond the initiative power) rather than a permissible constitutional “amendment.”
2. If Proposition 8 was valid, whether it applied retroactively to invalidate same-sex marriages lawfully performed before its effective date.

## Decision

- The court held Proposition 8 was a valid constitutional amendment adopted through the initiative process and enforceable upon passage.
- The court rejected the claim that Proposition 8 constituted a constitutional revision because it made a limited change and did not restructure the basic framework of government.
- The court construed Proposition 8 narrowly as withdrawing access to the designation “marriage” for same-sex couples while leaving other state-law protections intact.
- The court held Proposition 8 did not apply retroactively to annul same-sex marriages performed before its effective date.
- The court denied relief insofar as petitioners sought to invalidate Proposition 8, but granted relief declaring that existing same-sex marriages remained valid.

## Legal Principles

- Under California law, an initiative may enact a constitutional amendment by majority vote, but a constitutional revision requires more than the initiative process and is reserved for more fundamental change.
- A measure is more likely an amendment when it does not substantially alter the basic governmental framework or broadly transform constitutional principles as a whole.
- Constitutional changes are presumed to operate prospectively absent clear text showing retroactive intent.
- Absent a clear indication of retroactive operation, a constitutional amendment will not be interpreted to strip vested rights created by lawful conduct occurring before the amendment’s effective date.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court sustained Proposition 8 as a valid constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples going forward, while holding that same-sex marriages performed before Proposition 8 took effect remained valid and could not be retroactively annulled.


Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009)