Strauss v. Horton
2009 California Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Strauss v. Horton?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage. Several gay couples and governmental entities filed the lawsuits in California state trial courts. The Supreme Court of California agreed to hear appeals in three of the cases and consolidated them so they would be considered and decided. The supreme court heard oral argument in the cases in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that the cases will set precedent in California because "no previous case had presented the question of whether [a ballot] initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".[1]
Strauss v. Horton | |
---|---|
Argued March 5, 2009 Decided May 26, 2009 | |
Full case name | Karen L. Strauss et al., Petitioners, v. Mark B. Horton et al. |
Citation(s) | 46 Cal.4th 364 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591 207 P.3d 48 |
Holding | |
The Amendment to the State Constitution referred to as Proposition 8 is valid and enforceable from the moment it was passed. It cannot be applied to retroactively annul marriages that were transacted while the practice was legal in the State of California. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice | Ronald M. George |
Associate Justices | Marvin R. Baxter
Ming W. Chin • Carol A. Corrigan Joyce L. Kennard • Carlos R. Moreno Kathryn Mickle Werdegar |
Case opinions | |
Majority | George, joined by Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Corrigan |
Concurrence | Kennard |
Concurrence | Werdegar |
Concur/dissent | Moreno |
The court announced its decision on May 26, 2009.[2] The decision held that Proposition 8 was valid as adopted by the voters, but that marriages performed before Proposition 8 went into effect would remain valid. On June 26, 2013, Strauss v. Horton was mooted by Hollingsworth v. Perry.[3]