CA High Court Upholds Prop 8

Nearly three months after oral argument in the case against Prop 8, the California Supreme Court rejected constitutional arguments embraced by preeminent law professors, dozens of bar associations, leading law firms and civil rights standard-bearers, as well as hundreds of religious groups and faith leaders, labor unions, business leaders and scores of community groups.

In response to the ruling, Lambda Legal is launching Marriage Watch: California, a legal resource and education campaign designed to inform and assist same-sex married couples who encounter discrimination or disrespect for their married status.

The Court voted 6/1 to uphold Prop 8. Considering a question of first impression in California, the court opted to defer to majority voting power and uphold the ballot measure that, for the first time in California history, withdrew a basic right selectively from a minority group singled-out in a legally suspect manner. In the majority opinion authored by Chief Justice George, the Court stated:

"We conclude that each of the state constitutional challenges to Proposition 8 advanced by petitioners and the Attorney General lacks merit. Having been approved by a majority of the voters at the November 4, 2008 election, the initiative measure lawfully amends the California Constitution to include the new provision as article I, section 7.5. In a sense, petitioners' and the Attorney General's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it." The Court added that "if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in [Prop 8], it must 'find its expression at the ballot box.'"

Speaking from her mother's bedside, Karen Strauss, lead petitioner in the case, said, "My heart, already on the verge of breaking, has just been dealt an irreparable blow. I was so hoping the court would find its way to a decision that continues, rather than repeals, our equality under the law and that would allow our family to celebrate the love Ruth and I have shared for nearly 18 years."  Strauss continued, "My mother's poor health — a major impediment to Ruth's and my wedding plans last year — has taken the turn our family has been dreading; she is now under hospice care. The opportunity for her to witness my marriage has gone forever."

Her intended spouse, Ruth Borenstein, said, "While I am confident the voters ultimately will overturn Prop 8 and restore our equal rights, having to wait comes at a tremendous personal cost to us and our parents."  Borenstein added, "We've already lost my dad and Karen's mom is in precarious health. This ruling is a devastating disappointment to us and our surviving parents, who had hoped to share our joy at our long-awaited wedding."

The Court did, however, uphold the rights of the 18,000 same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008 — a position Lambda Legal and our co-counsel pressed to protect those couples' expectations, and to allow them and their families and friends to show that marriage equality respects personal dignity and strengthens communities. The Court stated:

"[E]xcept with respect to the designation of 'marriage,' any measure that treats individuals or couples differently on the basis of their sexual orientation continues to be constitutionally 'suspect' under the state equal protection clause and may be upheld only if the measure satisfies the very stringent strict-scrutiny standard of review that also applies to measures that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion."

Dissenting Justice Moreno wrote, "In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning." 

In addition to Marriage Watch: California, Lambda Legal is also launching enhanced collaborations with four community partners engaged in educational work in communities of color and faith in California: API Equality-LA, the Jordan/Rustin Coalition; the Latino Equality Alliance and California Faith for Equality. For years these groups have increased understanding among California's diverse communities and congregations. Lambda Legal is proud to help amplify these voices for equality for same-sex couples and their families in California. 

Stefan Johnson, Lambda Legal National Help Desk Attorney and Board Member of the Jordan/Rustin Coalition, explained, “We have seen for years that domestic partnership rights too often are ignored by those who see same-sex couples as unequal. Because we don’t want that history to repeat for the thousands of same-sex couples who married in California last year, we have trained a special ‘Marriage Watch’ team for Lambda Legal's Help Desk and invite any married same-sex couples with questions or problems to visit our website or call us.”

A broad coalition of California organizations that represent or work with people of color, including allies to these groups, issued a statement expressing deep disappointment at the decision to uphold Prop 8, vowing to "restore marriage equality to California." Lambda Legal is among more than 100 organizations that joined the statement.

For a case history and court documents, including the Supreme Court decision, visit Lambda Legal's case page for Strauss v. Horton.