Same-Sex Marriage in California - A Historic Day From the Nations High Court
If you were following us on social media yesterday, then you know we were
awaiting two highly anticipated decisions out of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Whether the Supreme Court Justices intended (or not) to be a part of history,
they certainly played an important role in providing equality for
all lawfully married couples.
Here’s a brief rundown of the decisions in the two same-sex marriage cases:
Yesterday there were two marriage decisions released from the Supreme Court
on the final day of the Court’s Term.
United States v. Windsor, was a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, in which the Court ruled
section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
is unconstitutional. The
Windsor decision permits same-sex couples living in states that recognize same-sex
marriage eligible for the same federal benefits available to other married
couples under federal law.
However, there remains unanswered questions with respect to the application of
Windsor did not directly answer to the issue of “portability” concerning
federal marital benefits. That is,
Windsor is limited to “lawful marriages” in states recognizing same-sex
marriage. What happens to these federal benefits when a same-sex couple
“transfers” to a state that does not recognize their marriage?
Issues are almost certain to arise and further guidance may be needed
from the varied federal benefit programs when dealing with states that
have competing understandings of the definition of marriage.
The second marriage case,
Hollingsworth v. Perry, a 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, in which the Court ruled
proponents of Proposition 8 (a California voter initiative banning same-sex
marriage) lacked legal standing to appeal a Federal District Court ruling,
which declared “Prop 8″ unconstitutional and enjoined California
officials from enforcing it.
As a result of
Perry, proponents of “Prop 8″, also called “interveners”
(a legal term describing “Prop 8″ supporters who entered the
lawsuit to defend “Prop 8″ when state officials declined to
support the initiative) in the legal case, could not demonstrate to the
Court “a personal and tangible harm” sufficient to demonstrate
a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution . The
Court ruled the 9th Circuit decision is vacated and remanded. The
Perry decision was resolved on procedural grounds, and did not specifically
rule on the issue of gay marriage in California. However, the practical
effect of the decision is clear,
Perry opens the door for the State of California to resume handing out marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.
Need more help with issues concerning gaymarriage in California? Do you need legal help from a
Los Angeles Family Law Attorney? If so, please
contact Castellanos & Associates, APLC at (323) 655-2105