Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

In re Marriage Cases

Supreme Court of California · 2008 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionFundamental Right to MarrySexual OrientationMarriageDomestic PartnershipCalifornia Constitutionequal protection

Facts

California statutes limited marriage to a union between a man and a woman through Family Code section 300 and, through Proposition 22, section 308.5. At the same time, California had enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which same-sex couples could obtain virtually all of the same substantive state-law rights, benefits, responsibilities, and duties as married couples. The resulting statutory scheme therefore gave opposite-sex couples the designation 'marriage' while giving same-sex couples the designation 'domestic partnership.' The litigation squarely presented whether that difference in designation, despite near-equality of substantive rights under state law, violated the California Constitution.

Issue

Whether, under the California Constitution, the state may maintain a statutory scheme in which opposite-sex couples may enter an officially recognized family relationship called 'marriage' while same-sex couples may enter an officially recognized family relationship with virtually all the same substantive rights and obligations but called only 'domestic partnership.' Also, whether sections 300 and 308.5 constitutionally may limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Rule

Under the California Constitution, the fundamental right to marry protects the right of an individual to join with the person of one's choice in an officially recognized and protected family relationship, and that right extends to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples. Sexual orientation is a suspect classification for purposes of the California equal protection clause, so statutes imposing differential treatment on that basis are subject to strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling state interest and a showing that the differential treatment is necessary to serve that interest. A statutory scheme that affords same-sex couples virtually all substantive incidents of marriage but denies them the designation 'marriage' while reserving that designation to opposite-sex couples impermissibly denies equal dignity and respect and is unconstitutional.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

California creates a new legal status called a "family union" for same-sex couples. The statute grants every state-law right, duty, and benefit available to spouses, but only opposite-sex couples may enter a relationship called "marriage." Priya Desai and Elena Cruz, who live in Sacramento, challenge the scheme under the California Constitution.

How should a California court most likely rule?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the California constitutional right to marry protects the right to form an officially recognized family with the person of one's choice, and that right extends to same-sex couples. Even where same-sex couples receive virtually all substantive incidents of marriage, reserving the designation "marriage" to opposite-sex couples denies equal dignity and respect and impinges on both the fundamental right to marry and equal protection. The state must justify that differential treatment under strict scrutiny, and tradition alone is not a compelling interest.