Perry v. Brown.

671 F.3d 1052 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

California created the designation 'domestic partnership' for 'two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.' The State substantially expanded the rights of domestic partners. The California Supreme Court held the statutes to be unconstitutional, for two independent reasons. The court held that the fundamental right to marry provided by the California Constitution could not be denied to same-sex couples, who are guaranteed 'the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.' It then held 'that an individual's homosexual orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or restricting the individual's legal rights.' California residents decided to overturn the California Supreme Court decision and sponsored Proposition 8. It changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.' It passed. Ps filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in May 2009, after being denied marriage licenses by the County Clerks of Alameda County and Los Angeles County. Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. The People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. The district court held Proposition 8 unconstitutional for two reasons: first, it deprives same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry, which is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, and second, it excludes same-sex couples from state-sponsored marriage while allowing opposite-sex couples access to that honored status, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.