Equal Protection - Same-Sex Marriage - California Supreme Court Classifies Proposition 8 as "Amendment" Rather Than "Revision"

Harvard Law Review, April 2010 | Go to article overview

Equal Protection - Same-Sex Marriage - California Supreme Court Classifies Proposition 8 as "Amendment" Rather Than "Revision"


EQUAL PROTECTION--SAME-SEX MARRIAGE--CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CLASSIFIES PROPOSITION 8 AS "AMENDMENT" RATHER THAN "REVISION."--Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (Cal. 2009).

In May 2008, a judicial opinion made California the second American state to recognize marriage equality for same-sex couples. (1) Less than six months later, California voters passed Proposition 8, changing the state constitution to strip same-sex couples of this right. Recently, in Strauss v. Horton, (2) the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of Proposition 8, holding that the initiative was properly classified under California law as a constitutional "amendment" rather than a constitutional "revision." The supreme court concluded that restricting the term "marriage" to opposite-sex couples did not represent the kind of "fundamental change" necessary to represent a revision, which must be initiated by a legislative supermajority before reaching the voters. (3) The court's standard--that only changes to governmental structure qualify as revisions--was consistent with a narrow reading of California precedent. However, the court missed an opportunity to resolve a problem that had not been addressed by that precedent, and further failed to take into account the judicial role in protecting minority rights. The court should have held that fundamental changes to individual rights for minority groups are per se revisions. In doing so, the court would have required a deliberative process for such constitutional alterations, better serving a conception of courts as the protectors of minority rights. (4) The likely harms the Strauss holding will cause for minorities--especially gay individuals--demonstrate the superiority of such a conception of judicial review and the amendment/revision distinction.

In In re Marriage Cases, (5) a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court held that state laws limiting the designation of the term "marriage" to opposite-sex couples violated both the fundamental right to marry and the state constitution's equal protection clause. (6) On the latter point, the court reasoned that "retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples ... may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise ... that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens.'" (7)

A few weeks after the court's decision, the Secretary of State certified Proposition 8 to appear on the general election ballot. (8) Proposition 8 sought to add a provision to the state constitution reading: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (9) The California Supreme Court rejected a challenge to including the initiative on the ballot, (10) and on November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, 52.3% to 47.7%. (11) Immediately after, same-sex couples seeking to marry, those who had been married before Proposition 8, and numerous California municipal entities filed suit to enjoin the measure's enforcement, on the ground that it was an improperly enacted constitutional revision that required the approval of a legislative supermajority before appearing on the ballot. (12)

The California Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice George, (13) held that Proposition 8 was not a revision to the state constitution, but merely an amendment. The court began by emphasizing that the case did not involve same-sex marriage per se, but rather was limited to the "scope of the right of the people ... to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process." (14) The court defined the effects of Proposition 8 in two ways. First, with regard to the due process aspect of the Marriage Cases, the court viewed the initiative as "carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses," (15) affecting only equal access to the word "marriage" and not the right to establish an officially recognized family relationship. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Equal Protection - Same-Sex Marriage - California Supreme Court Classifies Proposition 8 as "Amendment" Rather Than "Revision"
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.