City & County of San Francisco Vs State of California - In re Marriage Cases

The California Supreme Court in a historic 4-3 decision dated May 15, 2008 authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, joined by Associate Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno ruled that the state's failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution being it raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause, and further strike down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, thereby allowing same sex marriage.

The state’s ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted by the legislature in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman. The question of law before the Supreme Court of California was whether those laws violated provisions of the state Constitution protecting equality and fundamental rights.

Writing for majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George opined: “In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

He further observed: “The right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

Chief Justice George conceded: “as an historical matter in this state, marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman. But tradition alone does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right.”
He further clarified that this decision in discussion does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.

Besides above the court also considered the ground of equal protection and held that when courts weigh whether distinctions among people or groups violate the right to equal protection, they require only a rational basis for the distinction, a relatively easy standard to meet. But when the discrimination is based on race, sex or religion, the courts must require a more substantial and rigorous justification.

In dissenting opinion, Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But she observed: “We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root, If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”

Justice Marvin Baxter, joined by Justice Ming Chin also dissented with remarks: "If such a profound change in this ancient social institution is to occur, the people and their representatives, who represent the public conscience, should have the right, and the responsibility, to control the pace of that change through the democratic process."

CRAWFORD et al. v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD et al.

In 6-to-3 ruling delivered on April 28, 2008 the US Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law declaring requirement to produce government-issued photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a “valid interest” in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud. The court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and they are less likely to have any government issued photo identification.

Justice John Paul Stevens, announced the judgment of the court and wrote an opinion in which Chief John G. Roberts Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy joined. They observed that the plaintiffs who attacked the law, seeking a declaration that it was unconstitutional on its face, had failed to meet the heavy burden required for such a “facial challenge” to prevail. Arguments that the law in question may benefit Republicans and may work against Democrats, whose ranks are more likely to include poor people or those in minority groups, were also brushed aside.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court and remarked that “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.” Reason behind such remark could be that said law in question allows voters who lack government issued photo identification to cast a provisional ballot, and then appear at their county courthouse within 10 days to show required identification.

Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer dissented. Justice Souter said the Indiana law in question, which calls for a government-issued photo identification, like a driver’s license or passport, “threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens.”

This judgement in discussion have much significance in US Election Law because approx. 20 states have similar law and with this judgement they all have now hope for survival.