Furthermore, the ballot arguments pertaining to Proposition 22 indicate that section There is no evidence that when the Legislature adopted Family Code sectionand the Same sex marriage california court in Litchfield adopted Family Code section We therefore do not consider it necessary or advisable for us to address, at the present juncture, this issue raised by amicus curiae for the first time in these proceedings.
Absent a compelling justification, our state government may not deny a right as fundamental as marriage to any segment of society. This rationale clearly applies to statutory classifications that mandate differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.
It failed to garner enough votes for passages and died in the Assembly. Even if the distinction were subject to further examination under the equal protection clause, I disagree that strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of review. Superior Court 31 Cal.
The Court also finds that sexual orientation is a suspect classification under the California Constitution and the statute at issue must satisfy the strict scrutiny test.
See also. LGBT in California. Archived from the original on October 13, October The California Court of Appeals rules in favor of the freedom to marry, upholding the lower court ruling. April 2, January 4, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The court already is considering four major religion cases, including several with implications for gay, lesbian and transgender people.
For example, pursuant to section On May 15, , the Supreme Court struck down California's existing statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in a ruling. The decision in Perez , although rendered by a deeply divided court, is a judicial opinion whose legitimacy and constitutional soundness are by now universally recognized.
Months later, the California Supreme Court invalidates these marriages, but the action reflects the national excitement around the freedom to marry.