High Profile Case
In certain high profile cases, the Supreme Court provides online access to some case documents to increase public access to court information.
Marriage Cases
In re Marriage Cases, (S147999)
Oral Arguments - March 4, 2008
The court will allocate three hours to oral argument in this proceeding. For purposes of oral argument, the City and County of San Francisco and the other parties challenging the constitutionality of California's current marriage statutes will be deemed petitioners, and the State of California and the other parties supporting the constitutionality of the marriage statutes will be deemed respondents.
Listen to Oral Arguments
On March 4, California Channel , a public affairs cable network, will offer a live broadcast of the oral arguments. An audio archive of the broadcast will be available on the Supreme Court Broadcasts page shortly after March 4.
News Releases
Media Advisory: State Supreme Court Provides Online Briefs in Marriage Cases
(PDF) (Posted: February 11, 2008)
Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Marriage Cases on March 4, 2008
(PDF) (Posted: February 6, 2008)
Case Documents
Briefs filed in the case, organized by lead party.
Case Events
Case Information
Docket, disposition, parties and attorneys, and lower court information.
E-mail Notification
Request automatic e-mail notification about In re Marriage Cases developments.
About the Supreme Court of California
Overview of the Supreme Court
Background on the high court and its justices, case information, opinions, and forthcoming filings.
A Visitor's Guide to the Supreme Court of California (PDF, 1,074 KB)
Pamphlet detailing a brief overview of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of California
Overview of the court's work, procedures, membership, and history.
<< back
The Supreme Court of California in a 4–3 decision has struck down California's ban on gay marriage. The decision struck down two laws, one from 1977 and another more recent one due to a referendum in 2000. Prior to this case, California allowed extensive benefits to gay couples that were in practice close to those given to heterosexual couples. 

The Court's headquarters in San Francisco, California, which it shares with the Court of Appeal for the First District.
The case in question consisted of a consolidation of six cases being appealed. Parties included a variety of gay couples and the city of San Francisco which wanted to recognize gay couples.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, stated that that there was no legitimate basis to discriminate based on sexual preference. Moreover, the court found that the laws were unconstitutional given the protections of the California Constitution. The opinion was also signed by Justices, Kathryn Werdegar, and Carlos Moreno and Justice Joyce Kennard who also wrote an additional concurrence. Justice Marvin Baxter wrote dissent also signed by Justice Ming Chin. Finally, Justice Carol Corrigan wrote a dissent saying that although she personally favored gay marriage the people of California clearly had not and the popular will should not be overruled by the court.

Supporters of gay marriage said the ruling was a milestone. "This decision will give Americans the lived experience that ending exclusion from marriage helps families and harms no one," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, who noted that same-sex marriages are now legal in South Africa, Canada, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands.

James Dobson, head of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family called the ruling an outrage and called on the people of California to pass a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage saying that "Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny."


Edward Zelinsky of Yeshiva University, whose work was cited in the brief of California's attorney general supporting the law, characterized the court's opinion as "problematic in important respects." He criticized the court for failing to explain adequately why its logic does not apply to other non-traditional forms of marriage such as polygamy.

Since the decision is based upon the California Constitution, it cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Currently in the United States different states have taken different positions. Although a variety of states allow civil unions, at present only Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage. State courts have disagreed as to whether gay couples should be treated like heterosexual couples.