CruzLines
A legal blog offering excursions into the Constitution, equality law, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.
I'm Getting Married in the Morning
15 May 2008
The California Supreme Court has just held, 4-3, that the state constitution requires the government to allow same-sex couples to marry civilly. Chief Justice George wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennard, Werdegar, and Moreno. The court held that the least deferential form of review applied -- "strict scrutiny" -- because the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and because it "impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple." More details soon.Now, it might not actually be in the morning. Under Rule of Court 8.528(b), the decision will become final in 30 days unless the court orders otherwise. Notably, today's decision does not follow Vermont's or Massachusett's lead in offering legislators 6 months to fix the constitutional problem. In part, that seems unneeded because those states lacked the fairly comprehensive domestic partnership regime California enjoys. What the court instead said was that "Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court." Nothing should keep a county (say, San Francisco) that wanted to from complying with the judgment before 30 days have run.
Posted by Cruz at 10:05 AM | Link | 0 comments
Categories: marriage California Supreme Court
Professor David Cruz is a constitutional law expert focusing on civil rights and equality issues, including equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Categories
- California Marriage Equality Act (1)
- California Supreme Court (12)
- European Convention on Human Rights (2)
- free speech (1)
- gender identity (3)
- human rights (4)
- India (1)
- intersex (1)
- LGBT right (1)
- LGBTI rights (2)
- products liability (1)
- public forum (1)
- Section 5 (1)
- sexual orientation (6)
- sovereign immunity (1)
- strip search (1)
- substantive due process (1)
- Ten Commandments (1)
- United Nations (1)
- Williams Institute (1)
- Yogyakarta Principles (1)
- age discrimination (1)
- Barack Obama (1)
- boycotts (1)
- California Constitution (3)
- California Supreme Court (5)
- conferences (1)
- Connecticut Supreme Court (1)
- Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (4)
- District of Columbia (3)
- domestic partnership (4)
- Don't Ask Don't Tell (1)
- Eighth Amendment (2)
- employment discrimination (2)
- equal protection (9)
- First Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- House of Lords (1)
- Iowa Supreme Court (1)
- Japan (1)
- Maine (3)
- marriage (38)
- marriage recognition (10)
- New Hampshire (1)
- New York (1)
- Portugal (1)
- preemption (1)
- Prop 8 (24)
- public opinion (3)
- race discrimination (1)
- rape (2)
- respect for private life (2)
- sex (2)
- sexual orientation discrimination (3)
- sodomy (1)
- statutory rape (1)
- Sweden (1)
- U.S. Supreme Court (7)
- Vermont (1)
Archives
- November 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (1)
- July 2009 (2)
- June 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (5)
- April 2009 (5)
- March 2009 (6)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (3)
- October 2008 (5)
- August 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (3)
- June 2008 (5)
- May 2008 (7)
- March 2008 (1)
- February 2008 (1)
