Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
The Justices also said that just because a same-sex couple has a right to marry under the California Constitution, that does not mean gay couples
should get married. In other words, they may not like the decision, but it is the law.
The Court decided it was a matter of dignity, not legal protection, that was at issue in California, since, until now, "domestic partnerships" provide pretty much the same legal protections as marriage. The Court explained in this key passage of its decision:
One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple's constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.
Click here for a rundown on same-sex marriage history and a summary of what state laws are nationwide.
Here is some background on this case from the Judicial Council of California, including a link to the opinion, briefs filed before the Court in this matter, and more:
Opinion (PDF) - May 15, 2008
Oral Arguments - March 4, 2008
Audio and video archives of the broadcast are available on the Supreme Court Broadcasts page.
News Releases
Case Documents
Briefs filed in the case, organized by lead party.
Case Information
Docket, disposition, parties and attorneys, and lower court information.
Overview of the Supreme Court
Background on the high court and its justices, case information, opinions, and forthcoming filings.
good question according to the opinion, the legal protections that...
