California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8

Last month, the California Supreme Court, by a 6-1 vote, today rejected a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 4, 2008 election that added a section to the California Constitution providing “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The court unanimously held that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow, limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757.

The court also unanimously held that the new constitutional provision applies only prospectively, and does not affect the continued validity of the estimated 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples that occurred prior to November 5, 2008, when the new constitutional provision took effect.

Prop 8 eliminates same-sex marriage

On November 4, 2008, the controversial Proposition 8 passed providing for a change in the California State Constitution. The changed adds a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.". This change restricts the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, and eliminates same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases by "carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses" of the state constitution. The proposition did not affect the existing domestic partnerships registry.

Same sex marriage now allowed in California

On March 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples in California can get married. The Court ruled in a 172 page opinion that "...in light of the conclusions we reach concerning theconstitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that thelanguage of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union between aman and a woman is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, andthat the remaining statutory language must be understood as making thedesignation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Inaddition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed bysection 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand."

How this will affect immmigration is still to be determined. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents recognition of same sex marriages as it defined marriage as the union between a "man and a woman". So what will immigration do?