Consent; issuance of license and solemnization
Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent
of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.
Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must
be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization
as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section
425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).
(California Family Code Section 300)
Adults capability to consent to and consummate marriage
An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an
unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and not
otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and
consummating marriage.
(California Family Code Section 301)
Between man and woman only
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.
(Section 308.5) (Proposition 22)
California Marriage Protection Act
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.
(California Const. Art. I, Section 7.5) (Proposition 8)
Proposition 8 Cases: Strauss, et al. v. Horton, et al.; City and County of San Francisco, et al.; Tyler, et al. v. State, et al.
These actions were filed to request an immediate stay or injunctive relief to halt Proposition 8 from taking effect, claiming that the measure was an illegal constitutional revision, not merely an amendment to the constitution. Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court.
Marriage Cases Coordinated,
No. 4365
Six cases have been titled the"Marriage Cases"
and are part of a coordinated proceeding in San Francisco
Superior Court. All of these cases sought a determination
as to the constitutionality of California's marriage statutes.
Two cases, Thomasson and Proposition 22 Legal
Defense &Education Fund, sought a declaration that
the definition of marriage as a union between a man and
a woman is constitutional. The remaining four cases sought
to have that definition declared in violation of the California
constitution. The cases were appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the definition of marriage in California is a union of one man and one woman. The cases were again appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeals ruling and legalized same-sex "marriage" in the State of California.
Thomasson v. Newsom,
Case No. CGC 04-428794, consolidated with Proposition
22 Legal Defense & Education Fund v. City and County
of San Francisco, Case No. CPF 04-503943
City & County
of San Francisco v. State, Case No. CGC 04-429539,
consolidated with Woo
v. Lockyer, Case No. CPF 04-504030
Tyler v. County of
Los Angeles, Case No. BS 088506
Clinton v. State,
Case No. CGC 04-429548
Shortcut: Click here for the Supreme Court's decision in all of the coordinated cases.
Knight
v. Superior Court of Sacramento Co.
The California legislature passed AB 205 (The Domestic
Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act), which grants
the “same rights, protections, and benefits”
of marriage to “registered domestic partners.”
Proposition 22, a voter approved initiative, prohibits recognition
of same sex marriage. This suit alleges AB 205 violates
Prop. 22.
Proposition 22 Legal
Defense and Education Fund and Values Advocacy Council v.
Gonzales, Case No. 1-04-CV-019549
Soon after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses
to same-sex couples, Los Angeles announced that it would
recognize same-sex “marriages” of its employees.
This lawsuit challenges that decision on the ground that
it is beyond the City’s authority.
Lockyer v. City & County
of San Francisco, consolidated with Lewis
v. Alfaro, ___ Cal.Rptr. 3d ___, 2004 WL 1794627
(Cal., Aug 12, 2004)
When the San Francisco Superior Court declined to order
San Francisco to cease issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples (Thomasson and Proposition 22
above), several private plaintiffs, followed by the California
Attorney General, filed mandamus actions in the California
Supreme Court. The Court issued an immediate stay on March
11, 2004. On August 12, 2004, the Court ruled that the City,
Mayor, and Clerk exceeded their authority in deciding to
issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Court also
ruled that the marriage licenses issued are invalid.
See also: Perry, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al. (Federal District Court for the Northern District of California)
