The Big Question:
What was the rationale behind the California Supreme Court's May 2008 ruling in favor of same-sex marriage?
Relevant Constitutional Text:
Section 7 of the California State Constitution, which reads in part:
(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws ...
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Relevant Law:
California Family Code Section 300(a), which states that "{m}arriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and California Family Code Section 308.5 (passed by referendum in 2000), which states that "{o}nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Relevant Precedent:
Perez v. Sharp (1948), which, like the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in
Loving v. Virginia (1967), struck down laws against interracial marriage on the basis that marriage is a civil right.
Defense of Law:
Attorneys representing the State of California argued that California's domestic partnerships law, which grants same-sex couples the same state benefits as marriage, satisfies Section 7's equal protection requirements.
The Verdict:
In a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court held that the terminology of marriage contains within itself many intangible benefits. To intentionally deny one class of citizens these benefits without meeting a strict scrutiny standards violates Section 7's equal protection guarantees.
Possible Remedies:
The California Supreme Court struck down the state's restriction on same-sex marriage, but also held that the state could satisfy the ruling by using the terminology of domestic partnerships for both heterosexual and same-sex couples.
