View source for Same-sex marriage in California

{{short description|none}} <!-- No short description per [[WP:SDNONE]] -->
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2013}}
{{Same-sex unions}}
[[Same-sex marriage]] has been legal in [[California]] since June 28, 2013. The State of California first issued [[marriage license]]s to same-sex couples from June 16, 2008 to November 5, 2008, as a result of the [[Supreme Court of California]] finding in the case of ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'' that barring same-sex couples from [[marriage]] violated the [[Constitution of California]]. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 (though existing same-sex marriages continued to be valid) due to the passage of [[2008 California Proposition 8|Proposition 8]]—a state [[constitutional amendment]] barring same-sex marriages.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Misc/votebymail.htm|title=Election Results - November 4, 2008 - California Secretary of State|access-date=December 4, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080723190051/http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Misc/votebymail.htm |archive-date = July 23, 2008}}</ref> In 2024, the passage of [[2024 California Proposition 3|Proposition 3]] repealed the Proposition 8. The granting of same-sex marriages resumed following the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]'s decision in ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry]]'', which restored the effect of a [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|federal district court]] ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

California was the second [[U.S. state]] (after [[Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts|Massachusetts]]) to legalize same-sex marriage. Those marriages granted under the laws of other [[state government]]s, foreign and domestic, were legally recognized and retained state-level [[Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States|rights]] since 2008.<ref name="SB 54">{{cite web|url=http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34f258b3-8482-4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88%7D/SB%2054%20FAQ.PDF |title=SB 54 and Same-Sex Couples Who Marry Outside of California |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/10/12/daily8.html |title=California to recognize some out-of-state gay marriages |last=Robertson |first=Kathy |date=October 12, 2009 |website=Sacramento Business Journal |access-date=May 31, 2021}}</ref> On November 12, 2008, Connecticut took over California's former position as the second state issuing legal same-sex marriages. On November 5, 2024, California voters passed Proposition 3, a constitutional amendment that enshrined the right to same-sex and interracial marriage in the state constitution. The measure passed with 63% of the vote.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Christopher |first=Ben |date=2024-08-14 |title=California Proposition 3: Same-sex marriage |url=https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2024/propositions/prop-3-same-sex-marriage/ |access-date=2024-11-07 |work=CalMatters |language=en-US}}</ref>

==History==
{{see also|History of marriage in California|San Francisco 2004 same-sex weddings}}
From February 12 to March 11, 2004, under the direction of Mayor [[Gavin Newsom]], officials in [[San Francisco]] issued [[marriage license]]s to approximately 4,000 same-sex couples despite it being illegal to do so at both the state and federal level. During the month that licenses were issued, couples traveled from all over the [[United States]] and from other countries to be married. On August 12, citing Newsom's lack of authority to bypass state law, the [[Supreme Court of California]] ruled that the marriages were void.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/12/MNG8ABA7RC1.DTL "THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: One Year Later"], Rona Maresh, ''San Francisco Chronicle'', February 2, 2005</ref> Consolidated lawsuits against the [[Government of California|state government]] in favor of same-sex marriage eventually reached the Supreme Court of California. On May 15, 2008, it overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage with its ruling ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]''.<ref name="scoca">{{cite web |url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF |title=Text of the decision in ''In re Marriage Cases'' |date=May 15, 2008 |publisher=Supreme Court of California |access-date=2008-06-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100425180116/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF |archive-date=April 25, 2010 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref> The four-to-three decision took effect on June 16, 2008.<ref name="Stay denied">{{cite web |url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR31-08.PDF |title=California Supreme Court Denies Rehearing and Stay in Marriage Cases |date=June 4, 2008 |access-date=June 4, 2008}}</ref> Two weeks earlier, an [[Popular initiative|initiative]] to override this result of the court decision qualified for the November election ballot. The court declined to stay its decision until after the [[2008 California elections|November elections]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cbn.com/cbnnews/386575.aspx |title=CA Court Refuses to Stay Gay Marriage |publisher=cbn.com |date=June 4, 2008 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> Some reports suggested that out-of-state same-sex couples would marry in California prior to the 2008 elections because California does not require the marriage to be valid in the couple's home state.

The ballot initiative, [[2008 California Proposition 8|Proposition 8]], a state [[constitutional amendment]] titled ''Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act'',<ref>{{cite news|url=http://washblade.com/2008/8-15/news/national/13101.cfm|newspaper=Washington Blade|title=Anti-gay activists abandon effort to rewrite California amendment|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080926072402/http://www.washblade.com/2008/8-15/news/national/13101.cfm|archive-date=September 26, 2008|df=mdy-all}}</ref> appeared on the California general election ballot on November 4, 2008 and passed with a 52% majority.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite press release | url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/executive/press_releases/2008/DB08_068.pdf | title=Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election | publisher=[[Secretary of State of California]] | date=June 2, 2008 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080615021154/http://www.sos.ca.gov/executive/press_releases/2008/DB08_068.pdf | archive-date=June 15, 2008 | df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05-story.html |title=Voters Approve Proposition 8 Banning Same-Sex Marriages |last=Garrison |first=Jessica |date=November 5, 2008 |website=Los Angeles Times |access-date=May 31, 2021}}</ref> One supporter of Proposition 8 was [[the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], which donated [[United States dollar|$]]20 million to campaign for its passage.<ref>Ashton Emerald, [https://www.amazon.com/Million-Mormon-Opposition-Same-Sex-Marriage-ebook/dp/B06X6DMV2Y/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1491952159&sr=8-4&keywords=ashton+emerald The $20 Million Mormon Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage: The Why Behind LDS Opposition to Prop 8]</ref> The California Supreme Court heard several challenges to Proposition 8 in March 2009,<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/05/BALP169S2G.DTL | title = Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8| work = San Francisco Chronicle | author = Bob Egelko | access-date = April 26, 2009 | date=March 10, 2009}}</ref> but ultimately upheld the amendment, though the over 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed before the amendment was passed remained valid.

In the wake of Proposition 8's passage, California continued to allow [[Domestic partnership in California|domestic partnership]]s. This granted same-sex couples almost all state-level rights and obligations of [[marriage]],<ref>In Re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court Decision, footnote 24, pages 42–44,</ref> but did not apply to "federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states." Before Proposition 8 passed, the [[Williams Institute]] projected in June 2008 that about half of California's more than 100,000 same-sex couples would wed during the next three years and 68,000 out-of-state couples would travel to California to exchange vows.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20080612-9999-1n12wedbiz.html?imw=Y&lid=mostpopular|title=Exchanging vows, and cash|author=Penni Crabtree|newspaper=[[San Diego Union Tribune]]|date=June 12, 2008}}</ref>

On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Court [[Chief judge (United States)|Chief Judge]] [[Vaughn Walker]] declared Proposition 8 a violation of the [[Due process|Due Process]] and [[Equal Protection Clause|Equal Protection]] clauses of the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]] in ''Perry v. Schwarzenegger'', a decision upheld by the [[Same-sex marriage in the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] on February 7, 2012. The case, known as ''Perry v. Brown'' in the Ninth Circuit, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, 2012.<ref name="afer.org">{{cite web|title=U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Prop. 8 Case|url=http://www.afer.org/blog/u-s-supreme-court-asked-to-hear-prop-8-case/|publisher=[[American Foundation for Equal Rights]]|access-date=July 31, 2012}}</ref> The case was granted review as ''Hollingsworth v. Perry'' on December 7, 2012 and a decision was issued on June 26, 2013.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-two-cases-on-gay-marriage.html|title=Justices to Hear Two Challenges on Gay Marriage|newspaper=New York Times|date=December 7, 2012|access-date=December 8, 2012|first=Adam|last=Liptak|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220606080407/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-two-cases-on-gay-marriage.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&_r=0|archive-date=June 6, 2022|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> The court decided that the official sponsors of Proposition 8 did not have [[Standing (law)|legal standing]] to appeal the district court decision when the state's [[government official|public officials]] refused to do so.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/gay-marriages-ok-in-california/ |title=Same-sex marriages start in California |publisher=SCOTUSblog |date=June 28, 2013 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was [[Vacated judgement|vacated]] and the case was returned to that court with instructions to dismiss the appeal. On June 28, 2013, a [[stay of execution]] was lifted and same-sex marriages were able to resume. Same-sex couples began marrying later that day.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/28/california-gay-marriage/2474109/|title=Same-sex marriages resume in California|publisher=usatoday.com|access-date=June 30, 2013|first1=Michael|last1=Winter|first2=Elizabeth|last2=Weise|date=June 28, 2013}}</ref>

==Legislation==
{{see also|Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States}}

===Assembly Bill 607 (1977)===
From the enactment of legislation in 1971 to replace gendered pronouns with [[gender-neutral language|gender-neutral]] pronouns until 1977, the [[California Civil Code]] defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." This definition was uniformly interpreted as including only opposite-sex partners, but, because of worries that the language was unclear, ''Assembly Bill 607'', authored by Assemblyman [[Bruce Nestande]], was proposed and later passed in 1977 to "prohibit persons of the same sex from entering lawful marriage".<ref name="timeline"/>

Fears that the Civil Code would allow marriage between parties of the same sex had arisen due to a couple in [[Orange County, California|Orange County]] who sought a marriage license after the passage of [[Consenting Adult Sex Bill|legislation]] which repealed the criminality of [[homosexuality]] in California in 1976. The Orange County Clerks Association submitted a call to Nestande to clarify the law as it pertained to same-sex couples. The act amended the Civil Code to define marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary". Opponents of the bill included Assemblyman [[Willie Brown (politician)|Willie Brown]] and Senator [[Milton Marks]]. The bill passed 23–5 in the [[California State Senate]] and 68–2 in the [[California State Assembly|Assembly]]. It was signed into law on August 17, 1977 by Governor [[Jerry Brown]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/3882868/ |title=The Bakersfield Californian › 19 August 1977 › Page 3 |publisher=Newspapers.com |date=August 19, 1977 |access-date=April 5, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|author=Carla Marinucci |url=http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Brown-s-switch-on-Prop-8-reflects-times-3255275.php |title=Brown's switch on Prop. 8 reflects times |newspaper=SFGate |date=January 9, 2009 |access-date=April 5, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/57684513/ |title=The San Bernardino County Sun › 12 August 1977 › Page 5 |publisher=Newspapers.com |date=August 12, 1977 |access-date=April 5, 2014}}</ref> The section was repealed in 2015.

Legislation (known as ''AB 167''), authored by Assemblyman [[John Burton (American politician)|John Burton]], in 1991 would have deleted gender requirements. It failed to garner enough votes for passages and died in the Assembly.<ref>[http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/Archives/1972-2005-TFC-News-Stories/1991-Sacramento-Job-and-Marriage-Bills.pdf Homosexual anti-bias, marriage bills MONDAY January 28, 1991 sure to cause a stir]</ref> The bill was supported by the [[Bar Association of San Francisco|San Francisco Bar Association]], which had issued a statement in favor of same-sex marriage in 1989, and the [[California Lawyers Association]].<ref name="timeline">{{cite web|url=https://buddybuddy.com/t-line-1.html|title=Legal Marriage Court Cases — A Timeline|website=www.buddybuddy.com|accessdate=August 7, 2022}}</ref>

===Proposition 22 (2000)===
{{main|2000 California Proposition 22}}

Following Senator [[William J. Knight]]'s failure to pass anti-marriage legislation on two different occasions in 1995 and 1997 in the [[California State Legislature]], [[2000 California Proposition 22|Proposition 22]] was created as an initiative statute to add section 308.5 to the [[California Codes#Codes currently in effect|Family Code]], largely replicated the 1977 language.<ref>[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_911_cfa_19970424_154631_sen_comm.html SB 911]</ref>

In the March 7, 2000 [[Partisan primary|primary election]], Proposition 22 was adopted by a vote of 61% to 39%, thus adding section 308.5 to the Family Code, largely replicating the 1977 enactment. The one-sentence code section explicitly defined "the union of a man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage" in California. Proposition 22 was authored by Senator Knight, and the measure was dubbed the "Knight initiative" in an attempt to link it to the failed [[Briggs Initiative]] of 1978 that would have banned gays and lesbians from working as teachers in California's public schools. The California Supreme Court invalidated the results of Proposition 22 in 2008.

Proposition 22 was formally cited as ''The California Defense of Marriage Act''.<ref>[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1306 Senate Bill No. 1306, repealing the California Defense of Marriage Act]</ref>

===Passage of same-sex marriage legislation (2005–2007) ===
When California State Legislature opened the 2005–2006 session, Assemblyman [[Mark Leno]] introduced ''Assembly Bill 19'' (''AB 19''), which proposed legalizing same-sex marriage. The bill gained the support of Speaker [[Fabian Núñez]] among others.<ref name="ab19">{{cite web | url=http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_19&sess=0506&house=B&author=leno | title=Assembly Bill 19 (2005-2006) Legislative Documents | publisher=Legislative Counsel of California }}</ref> Leno had introduced a similar bill in the prior session, but it died in committee.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1967&sess=0304&house=B&author=leno |title=Assembly Bill 1967 (2003-2004) Legislative Documents| publisher=Legislative Counsel of California }}</ref> Assembly committees reported out ''AB 19'' favorably, but the measure failed on the Assembly floor on June 2, 2005.<ref name="ab19" /> Later that month, Assemblywoman [[Patty Berg (politician)|Patty Berg]] amended the text of her fisheries-research measure, ''Assembly Bill 849'' (''AB 849''), which was already in the Senate, to the text of Leno's failed bill.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_849&sess=0506&house=B&author=berg | title=Assembly Bill 849 (2005-2006) Legislative Documents | publisher=Legislative Counsel of California }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/senate-journal/sen-journal-0x-20050628-1709.PDF | title=Committee on Rules: AB 849 Author's Amendments | journal=Senate Daily Journal | volume=2005-06 | page=1714 | date=June 28, 2005}}</ref>

On September 2, 2005, the California Senate approved the bill 21–15, and on September 6 the California State Assembly followed suit with a vote of 41–35, making the California State Legislature the first in the nation to approve a same-sex marriage bill without court pressure. The next day, September 7, Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] indicated he would veto the bill, citing Proposition 22, which had passed with the approval of a majority of voters five years earlier. The State Legislature avoided physically delivering the bill to Governor Schwarzenegger for over two weeks, during which time advocacy groups urged him to change his mind.  Ultimately, the bill was delivered on September 23 and vetoed on September 29, 2005.<ref>{{cite news |last=Buchanan |first=Wyatt |date=September 13, 2005 |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/13/BAGP6EMO691.DTL |title=Gay rights advocates still trying to change Schwarzenegger's mind |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle}}</ref> Schwarzenegger said he believed that same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts or another vote by the people via a statewide initiative or [[referendum]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Ritter |first=John |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-07-gay-marriage_x.htm |title=Calif. governor to veto same-sex marriage bill |newspaper=USA Today | date=September 7, 2005 | access-date=May 23, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/1443/ |title=Statement by Gubernatorial Press Secretary Margita Thompson on AB 849}}</ref> He argued that the State Legislature's bill simply complicated the issue, as the constitutionality of Proposition 22 had not yet been determined, and its ultimate disposition would render ''AB 849'' either unconstitutional (being in conflict with a valid voter initiative) or redundant (being guaranteed by the California Constitution itself, as construed by the courts).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF |title=Text of decision in ''In re Marriage Cases'', Footnote 17, pg. 29-30 |date=May 15, 2008 |publisher=Supreme Court of California |access-date=2008-06-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100425180116/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF |archive-date=April 25, 2010 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

Shortly after the newly-elected Assembly was sworn in, Leno resubmitted a similar bill on December 4, 2006.<ref>[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_43&sess=CUR&house=A&author=leno AB 43], Bill Documents</ref> The bill was passed by the State Legislature in early September 2007, giving Governor Schwarzenegger until October 14, 2007 to either sign or veto the bill.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/09/090707calif.htm |title=Calif. Leg. Again Passes Gay Marriage Bill] |publisher=365Gay.com |date=September 7, 2007}}</ref> Schwarzenegger had stated months before that he would veto the bill on the grounds that the issue at hand had already been voted on by California voters by way of Proposition 22.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?article=1578&sec=news |date=February 15, 2007 |access-date=June 5, 2008 |title=Schwarzenegger vows to veto marriage bill |publisher=The Bay Area Reporter Online |archive-date=March 9, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080309192955/http://www.ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?article=1578&sec=news |url-status=dead }}</ref> Schwarzenegger followed through on his statement and on October 12, 2007 he vetoed the bill. He wrote in his veto statement that to solve the issue of same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court needed to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 22.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_43_vt_20071012.html |title=Assembly Bill 43 - Veto}}</ref>

===Proposition 8 (2008)===
{{main|2008 California Proposition 8}}
Months before the [[Supreme Court of California|California Supreme Court]]'s ruling, groups who opposed same-sex marriage began circulating initiative petitions. One petition, titled the "California Marriage Protection Act" by its proponents and the "Limit on Marriage" amendment by the [[California Attorney General]] on the actual ballot, gathered an estimated 764,063 valid signatures and qualified for the November 4, 2008 ballot as Proposition 8.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> The measure would add Section 7.5 to Article I of the [[Constitution of California]]. It would supersede the part of the Supreme Court's holding that authorized the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Twelve other proposed amendments since 2004 had failed to qualify to be on the ballot.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/activeindex.php?active=I |title=Initiative Measures - Office of the California Attorney General |publisher=ag.ca.gov |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> The ability of the voters to remove a fundamental constitutional right by initiative amendment was challenged.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm |newspaper=Metropolitan News-Enterprise |date=May 21, 2008 |title=In My Opinion: Is The Proposed "Limit On Marriage" Initiative Too Late? |author=Kevin Norte}}</ref> A lawsuit filed on those grounds asking for the removal of Proposition 8 from the ballot was dismissed on July 16, 2008.

On the day after the election, the results remained uncertified. With 100% of precincts reporting, the vote was 52.47% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.53% opposed, with a difference of about 504,000 votes;<ref name="ca-sos-results">{{cite web|title=Election Night Results - CA Secretary of State|publisher=California Secretary of State|date=November 5, 2008|url=http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090210160301/http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.html|archive-date=February 10, 2009|access-date=November 5, 2008}}</ref> as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remained to be counted.<ref name="ap-remaining-ballots">{{cite news|last=Leff|first=Lisa|title=Calif. gay marriage ban vote undecided|agency = Associated Press|date=November 5, 2008|url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20081105-0828-ca-gaymarriage.html|access-date=November 5, 2008}}</ref> The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign conceded defeat on Thursday, November 6, issuing a statement saying, "Tuesday's vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law."<ref>{{cite web|title=Final Statement from No on Prop 8 Campaign|publisher=No On 8, Equality for All|date=November 6, 2008|url=http://www.noonprop8.com/|access-date=November 6, 2008}}</ref>

On Wednesday, November 5, 2008, [[Lawsuits to Overturn Proposition 8|three lawsuits]] were filed, challenging the validity of Proposition 8 on the grounds that revoking the right of same-sex couples to marry was a constitutional "revision" rather than an "amendment", and therefore required the prior approval of two-thirds of each house of the California State Legislature. Plaintiffs in the various suits included same-sex couples who had married or planned to marry, the cities of [[San Francisco]] and [[Los Angeles]] and [[Santa Clara County, California|Santa Clara County]].<ref>{{cite news|author=Maura Dolan and Tami Abdollah|title=Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=November 6, 2008|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaylegal6-2008nov06,0,220763.story|access-date=November 6, 2008}}</ref> The California Supreme Court heard several challenges to Proposition 8 and on May 26, 2009 upheld the proposition but did not overturn previous same-sex marriages which occurred following their ruling in June 2008 and before November 5, 2008. Same-sex marriage supporters considered trying to get [[California Marriage Equality Act|another ballot initiative]] to repeal Proposition 8 on the ballot in the 2012 election, but decided to wait.<ref name=EQCA>{{cite web|title=EQCA -- Win Marriage Back|url=http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4815401}}</ref>

===The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act (2009)===
On October 12, 2009, following the passage of Proposition 8, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law ''The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act'', legislation proposed by Senator Leno.<ref>{{cite web |last=McGuire |first=Bobby |url=http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=97558 |title=Schwarzenegger signs Milk Day, marriage recognition into law |publisher=edgeboston.com |date=October 12, 2009 |access-date=September 12, 2013 |archive-date=January 19, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119023812/http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=97558 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2248216.html Schwarzenegger signs gay rights bills] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091014151143/http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2248216.html |date=October 14, 2009 }}</ref> The bill established that some of the same-sex marriages performed outside the state are also recognized by the state of California as "marriage", depending on the date of the union.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/12/california.samesex.marriage/index.html|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120701142044/http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-12/us/california.samesex.marriage_1_same-sex-marriages-unions-or-domestic-partnerships-california-family-council?_s=PM:US|url-status=live|archive-date=July 1, 2012|title=California bill to recognize some same-sex marriages|date=October 12, 2009|publisher=CNN|access-date=May 17, 2012}}</ref>

On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court affirmed that all same-sex marriages performed in California before the passage of Proposition 8 would continue to be valid and be recognized as "marriage". ''The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act'' also established that a same-sex marriage performed outside the state would be recognized as "marriage" if it occurred before Proposition 8 took effect. This category also included same-sex marriages performed before same-sex marriage became legal in California.<ref name="SB 54"/> It also mandated the full legal recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully performed outside of California after the passage of Proposition 8, with the sole exception that the relationship could not be designated with the word "marriage".<ref>{{cite web|author=Leno |url=http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_54_bill_20091011_chaptered.html |title=Text of SB 54 |publisher=info.sen.ca.gov |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> The law provided no label to be used in place of "marriage" to describe these relationships; they were not "domestic partnerships".<ref name="SB 54"/> The resumption of same-sex marriage in California on June 28, 2013 effectively supersedes this law with respect to out-of-state same-sex marriages.

===Senate Bill 1306 (2014)===
Introduced by Senator Mark Leno on February 21, 2014, ''Senate Bill 1306'' would repeal the 1977 legislation, ''The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act'', and Proposition 22.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1306 |title=SB 1306 - California 2013-2014 Regular Session |publisher=Open States |access-date=April 5, 2014}}</ref> The legislation would remove the statutory reference to marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" from the Family Code and update the law with gender-neutral terms to apply to same-sex marriages as well as different-sex ones.<ref name="Los Angeles Times">{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-leno-marriage-bill-20140707-story.html|title=New law updates state code to use gender-neutral marriage terms|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=July 7, 2014}}</ref> During its passage, some concern was expressed that, by repealing Proposition 22, ''SB 1306'' breached the separation of powers as the State Legislature would be repealing an initiative passed by the voters. However, the consensus of the Assembly Judiciary Committee was that the voters are no more able to pass an unconstitutional, and subsequently enjoined, statute anymore than the State Legislature can. In light of ''[[In Re Marriage Cases]]'' and ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry]]'', which collectively forbade the enforcement of any law which would prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, the committee determined that the State Legislature has the capacity to repeal enjoined statutes.

''SB 1306'' was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 5–2 on April 8, 2014. On May 1, 2014, the Senate passed the bill on a 25–10 vote.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/calf-senate-advances-bill-to-remove-man-and-woman-from-marriage-laws/|title=Calif. Senate advances bill to remove 'man and woman' from marriage laws|publisher=LGBTQ Nation|date=May 1, 2014}}</ref> On June 30, it passed the Assembly in a 51–11 vote.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/30/6524002/legislation-updates-california.html |title=Legislation updates California marriage laws |newspaper=The Sacramento Bee |date=June 30, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714195247/http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/30/6524002/legislation-updates-california.html |archive-date=July 14, 2014 |df=mdy }}</ref> It was signed by Governor Brown on July 7 and took effect on January 1, 2015.<ref name="Los Angeles Times"/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/07/california-governor-signs-bill-to-update-states-marriage-laws/|title=California governor signs bill to update state's marriage laws|publisher=LGBTQ Nation|date=July 7, 2014}}</ref> The statute definition of marriage in California is now the following:<ref>[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1306 SB-1306 Marriage Today's Law As Amended]</ref>
{{blockquote| Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500). [California Family Code § 300]}}

In April 2016, the State Senate voted 34–2 to approve ''Senate Bill 1005'', introduced by Senator [[Hannah-Beth Jackson]], that updated California law similarly to ''SB 1306''.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://sd19.senate.ca.gov/news/2016-04-14-jackson-bill-update-laws-reflect-marriage-equality-passes-senate-floor|title=Jackson Bill To Update Laws To Reflect Marriage Equality Passes Off Senate Floor|date=April 14, 2016|publisher=Hannah-Beth Jackson|archive-date=April 12, 2019|access-date=May 28, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412221347/https://sd19.senate.ca.gov/news/2016-04-14-jackson-bill-update-laws-reflect-marriage-equality-passes-senate-floor|url-status=dead}}</ref> The Assembly approved the bill by a vote of 63–1 with amendments. The bill went back to the Senate for the amendments' approval, and it was passed by 34 votes to 0. It was signed into law by Governor Brown, and took effect on January 1, 2017.<ref>[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1005 SB-1005 Marriage. (2015-2016)], California Legislature</ref>

===Proposition 3 (2024)===
{{main|2024 California Proposition 3}}
Following the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]]'s decision in ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', which overturned ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', in June 2022, a group of state lawmakers, including representatives [[Scott Wiener]] and [[Evan Low]], said they had prepared a draft bill to repeal Proposition 8 from the California Constitution. The group sought to have a measure put on the November 2024 ballot for approval by voters.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-LGBTQ-leaders-are-pushing-to-17280666.php|title=California's LGBTQ leaders are pushing to remove zombie same-sex marriage ban from the state Constitution|work=The San Francisco Chronicle|date=July 5, 2022|last=Gardiner|first=Dustin}}</ref> Senate President [[Toni Atkins]] said, "The door will be opened to undermine all of those rights.", in response to the decision to overrule ''Roe''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article262858688.html|last=Kasler|first=Dale|title=Will Supreme Court outlaw same-sex marriage? California advocates see peril in abortion ruling|date=June 24, 2022|work=The Sacramento Bee}}</ref> Wiener and Low introduced the bill to the State Legislature in February 2023.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apnews.com/article/california-state-government-scott-wiener-san-francisco-marriage-769914918583e62f3c186cbd52046f5a|title=California will try to enshrine right to same-sex marriage|first=Sophie|last=Austin|date=February 14, 2023|work=Associated Press}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://news.yahoo.com/stain-prop-8-may-removed-180002568.html|title=How the Stain of Prop. 8 May Be Removed From California|work=Yahoo!|date=June 5, 2023|first=Trudy|last=Ring}}</ref>

On June 26, 2023, the California Assembly voted 67–0 to approve a constitutional amendment repealing the text of Proposition 8 and replacing it with the following:<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stahl |first=Shane |date=2023-06-26 |title=California Assembly Passes Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage Equality With Bipartisan Support |url=https://www.eqca.org/aca-5-assembly-vote/ |access-date=2023-06-28 |website=Equality California |language=en}}</ref> "The right to marry is a fundamental right." On July 13, 2023, the California Senate voted unanimously 31–0 to approve the amendment and refer it to the November 2024 ballot for approval by the electorate.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-07-13 |title=California still has an anti-gay marriage law on the books. Voters could remove it next year |url=https://apnews.com/article/california-samesex-marriage-equality-voters-ballot-2552934177cf9bb82a9bfa11eb9f1e38 |access-date=2023-07-13 |website=AP News |language=en}}</ref> The measure was approved by 62.6% of voters.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/california-prop-3-projected-to-pass-changing-state-constitution-on-marriage/3553805/|title=Prop 3 projected to pass, changing California constitution on marriage|work=NBC4 Los Angeles|date=6 November 2024|author=Helen Jeong}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_3,_Right_to_Marry_and_Repeal_Proposition_8_Amendment_(2024)|title=California Proposition 3, Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment (2024)|work=Ballotpedia}}</ref>

==Court challenges==

===Trial court decision===
In February 1993, Benjamin and Marcial Cable-McCarthy submitted an application for a [[marriage license]] to the [[Los Angeles County, California|Los Angeles County]] Clerk's Office, but it was rejected. They had previously changed their names to Cable-McCarthy.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-07-31-vw-4328-story.html|title=For Some Adoptees, a Time to Be Courageous|last=Abcarian|first=Robin|date=1992-07-31|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2017-03-27|language=en-US|issn=0458-3035}}</ref> Their lawsuit against the Clerk's Office, filed in April 1993, was the first case challenging California's laws on same-sex marriage.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-21-me-25290-story.html|title=Gay Couple Challenge State Laws on Marriage : Courts: They sue county in effort to obtain license. Attorney says test is first of California law.|last=Kelleher|first=Kathleen|date=1993-04-21|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2017-03-27|language=en-US|issn=0458-3035}}</ref> However, the case was dismissed by the [[California courts of appeal#Second District|2nd District State Court of Appeal in Los Angeles]] on May 22, 1993.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-05-22-me-38436-story.html|title=WEST HOLLYWOOD : Court Denies Gay Couple's Marriage License Petition|date=1993-05-22|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2017-03-27|language=en-US|issn=0458-3035}}</ref> The case, ''Cable-McCarthy v. California'', was then denied a review on appeal by the California Supreme Court. Rather than pursue the case further, the couple chose to await a resolution in ''[[Baehr v. Miike]]'', a [[Hawaii]] case on the legality of same-sex marriage, which subsequently lost in the [[Supreme Court of Hawaii|Hawaii Supreme Court]] in 1999.

In ''Smelt v. Orange County'', Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a same-sex couple together for 8 years, sued in federal court, challenging the federal ''[[Defense of Marriage Act]]'' (DOMA) and Proposition 22. Judge [[Gary L. Taylor]] of the [[United States District Court for the Central District of California|U.S. District Court for the Central District of California]] ruled against the couple in June 2005, upholding the federal law and declining to consider the California law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case on appeal in May 2006, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review on October 10, 2006.<ref name="timeline"/>

[[San Francisco]] and numerous individuals sued the state of California seeking to overturn Proposition 22, the state law that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. Among the different cases were ''City and County of San Francisco v. State of California'', ''Tyler vs. State of California'', filed by two same-sex couples, ''Woo and Chung v. Lockyer'', filed by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Lambda Legal]] and the [[National Center for Lesbian Rights]], and three more. All challenged the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Five of the cases were filed in the [[San Francisco County Superior Court]] and one case in the [[Los Angeles County Superior Court]]. Eventually, all six cases were coordinated (''In re Marriage Cases'') and assigned to San Francisco Superior Court Judge [[Richard Kramer (judge)|Richard Kramer]]. On March 14, 2005, Judge Kramer ruled that California statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_marriage_ca |title=NCLR: In re Marriage Cases |publisher=nclrights.org |access-date=September 12, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013142927/http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_marriage_ca |archive-date=October 13, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> The court held there was no rational connection between forbidding same-sex marriage and any legitimate state interest and the opposite-sex requirements impermissibly discriminated based on [[gender]].

===Appellate court decision===
The state and organizations opposed to same-sex marriage appealed. Division Three of the [[California Courts of Appeal#First District|First District Court of Appeal]] held extended [[oral argument]]s on the cases on July 10, 2006, before a three-judge panel. In a 2-to-1 decision, the appellate court overturned the lower court.<ref name="appellate">{{cite web  |url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A110449.PDF  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061206105115/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A110449.PDF  |url-status=dead  |archive-date=December 6, 2006  |title=First Appellate court decision in ''In re Marriage Cases''  |df=mdy-all  }}</ref> Writing for the majority, Presiding Justice William R. McGuiness found: The marriage statutes do not discriminate based on gender; the state's interests in "preserving the traditional definition of marriage" and "carrying out the expressed wishes of a majority of Californians" were sufficient to preserve the existing law; and challenges from the two groups opposed to same-sex marriage had to be dismissed because they lacked [[Standing (law)|standing]] in any [[case or controversy|actual controversy]] on which the court could rule.

The majority emphasized that it was not the role of the court to determine whether the "traditional definition" of marriage should be maintained. "The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions," McGuiness wrote. "That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat." In a sharply worded dissent, Justice J. Anthony Kline (Presiding Justice of Division Two, sitting [[by designation]] because two justices had recused themselves) described the court's reasoning as "circular". He wrote that the majority's indifference to the reasons why marriage is a fundamental right unintentionally "diminish the humanity of the lesbians and gay men whose rights are defeated". Both justices in the majority commented at length on Justice Kline's dissent.<ref name="appellate"/>

===Supreme Court of California review===
{{main|In re Marriage Cases}}
{{wikinews|California Supreme Court strikes down ban on gay marriage}}
In November 2006, several parties petitioned the [[Supreme Court of California]] to review the decision.<ref name=caseinfo>{{cite web|url=http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=447693&doc_no=S147999 |title=California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information |publisher=appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov |date=January 1, 1970 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> Attorney General [[Bill Lockyer]] asked the Supreme Court to take up the case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_849&sess=0506&house=B&author=leno |title=Bill List |publisher=leginfo.ca.gov |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> In December 2006, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to review all six cases and held oral arguments on March 4, 2008, consolidating the cases as ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]''.<ref name=caseinfo />

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court struck down California's statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in a 4–3 ruling.<ref>{{cite news|last=Egelko|first=Bob|title=State's top court strikes down marriage ban|url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/State-s-top-court-strikes-down-marriage-ban-3213394.php|access-date=October 30, 2012|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|date=May 16, 2008}}</ref> The judicial ruling overturned the anti-marriage law which the State Legislature had passed in 1977 and Proposition 22. After the ruling, Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] issued a statement repeating his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that would override the ruling.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice [[Ronald M. George]], cited the court's 1948 decision in ''[[Perez v. Sharp]]'' where the state's [[interracial marriage]] ban was held unconstitutional. It found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that [[sexual orientation]] is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or [[discrimination]] on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to [[strict scrutiny]] under the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Constitution of California|California State Constitution]]. Associate Justices [[Joyce L. Kennard]], [[Kathryn Werdegar]], and [[Carlos R. Moreno]] concurred.<ref name="scoca" /> It was the first state high court in the country to do so.<ref>{{cite news |first=Adam |last=Liptak |title=California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss |newspaper=New York Times |date=May 15, 2008 |access-date=May 16, 2008 }}</ref> The [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]], by contrast, did not find sexual orientation to be a protected class, and instead voided its same-sex marriage ban on a [[rational basis review]] in ''[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]]'' in 2003.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf |title=Text of the Massachusetts ruling in ''Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health'' |work=Findlaw.com}}</ref>

After the announcement, the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the [[Alliance Defense Fund]], ''inter alia'', asked for a [[Stay of execution|stay]] of the ruling. In a one-page order on June 4, 2008, the court denied all petitions for rehearing or to reconsider the May 15 ruling and rejected moves to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November election, when Californians would vote on a [[constitutional amendment]] to overturn the decision. As a result, same-sex marriages took place starting in mid-June. Chief Justice George and Justices Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno voted for the resolution, while dissenting or voting to reconsider the judgment, were Justices [[Marvin R. Baxter]], [[Ming Chin]] and [[Carol Corrigan]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gay-marriagejun05,0,6075700.story|title=Calif. court refuses to stall gay marriage|author=Maura Dolan, Jessica Garrison|newspaper=[[Chicago Tribune]]|date=June 5, 2008|access-date=May 17, 2012|archive-date=June 9, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080609043210/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gay-marriagejun05,0,6075700.story|url-status=dead}}</ref> The order stated, "The decision filed on May 15, 2008, will become final on June 16, 2008, at 5 p.m.."<ref name="Stay denied" /> San Francisco Mayor [[Gavin Newsom]] announced that marriages would be held starting at 5:01&nbsp;p.m. on June 16.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05stay.html?ref=us |title=Court Won't Delay Same-Sex Marriages | work=The New York Times | first=Jesse | last=McKinley | date=June 5, 2008 | access-date=May 23, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-marriage5-2008jun05,0,7825437.story |title=California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage |publisher=LA Times online | first1=Maura | last1=Dolan | first2=Jessica | last2=Garrison | date=June 5, 2008 | access-date=May 23, 2010}}</ref> The final stage of the case was the issuance of a [[Writ of mandate (California)|writ of mandate]] by the [[Superior Court of California|Superior Court]] to the Registrar of Vital Statistics on June 19, 2008.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/courts/media_center/writ.pdf |title=San Francisco Superior Court Issues Orders to Implement Supreme Court Decision Making State Marriage Law Gender Neutral |date=June 20, 2008 |access-date=June 20, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080624201248/http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/courts/media_center/writ.pdf |archive-date=June 24, 2008 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

===Legal challenges to Proposition 8===
{{see also|Strauss v. Horton|Hollingsworth v. Perry}}
On June 20, 2008, gay rights groups filed suit with the California Supreme Court seeking to remove the initiative from the November ballot; their lawsuit was later dismissed on July 16, 2008.<ref>{{cite news |title=Bid to ban gay marriage will stay on ballot, California Supreme Court rules|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage17-2008jul17,0,672698.story |date=July 17, 2008|access-date=July 21, 2008|work=Los Angeles Times|first=Maura|last=Dolan}}</ref> They argued that the changes would constitute a revision to the California Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature before being placed before voters, rather than a mere amendment, which does not require involvement by the State Legislature. They further argued that the original petitions, which were circulated before the May 15 court decision, were misleading because the petitions said the initiative would not change the marriage laws and would have no fiscal impact.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/20/BAC211CKE5.DTL&type=politics.htm |newspaper= San Francisco Chronicle |date=June 20, 2008 |title=Gay marriage backers want ban issue off ballot | first=Bob | last=Egelko}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-court21-2008jun21,0,7740249.story |title=Gay rights groups ask California Supreme Court to block initiative banning same-sex marriage |date=June 21, 2008 |access-date=June 22, 2008 | work=Los Angeles Times |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080626085903/http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-court21-2008jun21,0,7740249.story |archive-date = June 26, 2008}}</ref>

Prior to the election date, backers of Proposition 8 also filed a lawsuit after Attorney General [[Jerry Brown]] changed the title of the initiative from "Limit on Marriage" to "Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry".<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_10136941 Ruling expected today on gay marriage ballot], San Jose ''Mercury News'', August 8, 2008</ref> On August 8, 2008, Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that "The Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry", so the new name would appear on the ballots.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/08/BAE5127O2F.DTL&type=politics Judge refuses to order change in Prop. 8 title] ''San Francisco Chronicle'', August 9, 2008</ref>

[[File:Gay Marriages at SF City Hall.jpg|thumb|right|A same-sex marriage solemnized at [[San Francisco City Hall]] on June 28, 2013, just hours after the Ninth Circuit stay was lifted.]]
On the day of the ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]'' decision on May 26, 2009&ndash;in which the Supreme Court of California upheld Proposition 8 as a lawful amendment of the State Constitution&ndash;the [[American Foundation for Equal Rights]] (AFER) filed suit in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California]] to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 under the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]] in a case known as ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry|Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]''. Judge [[Vaughn Walker]] ordered a full trial which began in January 2010. It addressed questions as wide-ranging as whether being gay diminishes one's contribution to society, affects one's ability to raise children, impairs judgment, or constitutes a mental disorder.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/19/BA7T19AQ10.DTL&tsp=1|title=Judge sets January trial for Prop. 8 lawsuit|newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|author=Egelko, Bob|date=August 19, 2009|access-date=August 19, 2009}}</ref> Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, violating both the [[Due Process Clause|Due Process]] and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and on August 12, 2010, had scheduled to deny a motion to stay the ruling throughout the appeals process. On August 16, 2010, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] granted the motion to stay, ordered expedited briefing on the merits of the appeal, and directed the parties to brief the issue of why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing.<ref name="ca9.uscourts">Ninth Circuit: [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/08/16/order_motion_stay.pdf "Order," August 16, 2010]. Retrieved August 16, 2010</ref> On August 17, the same Ninth Circuit panel ordered expedited briefing on the Imperial County appeal.<ref name="ca9.uscourts_a">Ninth Circuit: [http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/08/17/10-16751_order.pdf "Order," August 17, 2010]. Retrieved August 17, 2010</ref> The court also ordered both appeals calendared for oral arguments during the week of December 6, 2010 in San Francisco. On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision in ''Perry v. Brown'', which it stayed pending appeal. Proponents of Proposition 8 appealed to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] on July 31, 2012, and the court granted ''[[certiorari]]'' on December 7, 2012 as ''Hollingsworth v. Perry''. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Proposition 8 supporters did not have standing for their appeal, and thus ordered the Ninth Circuit to void their ruling, leaving Walker's decision standing.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-prop-8/index.html |title=Supreme Court dismisses California's Proposition 8 appeal |publisher=CNN.com |access-date=September 12, 2013 |date=June 27, 2013}}</ref> The Ninth Circuit lifted its stay on June 28, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in California once again. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, two of the plaintiffs in ''Perry'', were married shortly afterward at [[San Francisco City Hall]], making them the first same-sex couple to be married in California since Proposition 8 was overturned. The officiant was the [[Attorney General of California]], [[Kamala Harris]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/County-Clerks-Ready-for-Marriage-License-Rush-213613921.html|title=County Clerks Ready for Marriage License Rush|publisher=nbcbayarea.com|date=June 28, 2013|access-date=June 29, 2013}}</ref>

Opponents of same-sex marriage filed an emergency petition on June 29 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the lifting of the stay issued by the Ninth Circuit.<ref name="reaction"/> Supreme Court Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] denied the petition on June 30.<ref name="kennedy"/>

===Further legal challenges to the scope of the injunction barring enforcement of Proposition 8===
Proposition 8 proponents argued that the district court's injunction was applicable only to the two couples who were the plaintiffs in the case or, at most, applied to the two counties whose clerks were named as defendants. Attorney General Kamala Harris, however, issued an analysis that the district court's injunction applies statewide and is binding upon all [[List of counties in California|58 of California's counties]] based on the interpretation of California Supreme Court's decision in ''Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AG-letter-re-Prop.-8.pdf |title=Attorney General Letter re Prop 8 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> stating that county clerks are state officials under supervision of the [[California Department of Public Health]] for the limited purpose of issuing marriage licenses and are thus bound by the injunction. Governor Brown then directed all county clerks to comply with district court ruling.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18120 |title=Governor Brown Directs California Department of Public Health to Notify Counties that Same-Sex Marriages Must Commence |publisher=gov.ca.gov |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref>

On July 12, 2013, Proposition 8 proponents petitioned the California Supreme Court in ''Hollingsworth v. O'Connell'',<ref>[http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2050721&doc_no=S211990 S211990 Hollingsworth v. O'Connell]</ref> invoking the court's [[original jurisdiction]] under Article VI of the California Constitution, asking the Supreme Court to issue a [[writ of mandate]] and an immediate stay or injunction ordering county clerks to enforce Proposition 8. Arguing that the district court lacked authority to grant relief beyond the named plaintiffs or, even if the district court had such authority, its injunction only applied to the two county clerks who were named defendants. They also argued that Article III of California Constitution prohibits administrative officials from declaring a law unconstitutional or unenforceable or refusing to enforce the law unless an appellate court has made such a determination. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in ''Hollingsworth v. Perry'' held that Proposition 8 proponents lacked legal standing to appeal the district court's decision, the decision of the Ninth Circuit was [[Vacated judgement|vacated]] with no legal effect or [[precedent]].

The California Supreme Court ordered the parties to brief on the merits and whether the stay should be issued,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CA-SCt-order-7-12-13-re-Prop-8-stay-etc.pdf |title=CA-Supreme Court-Order-7-12-13 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> and on July 15 it denied the application for a stay.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2050721&doc_no=S211990 |title=Court Docket: S211990 |publisher=appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> On July 19, San Diego County Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg Jr. filed a petition, ''Dronenburg v. Brown'',<ref>[http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2051465&doc_no=S212172 S212172 Dronenburg v. Brown]</ref> asking for the California Supreme Court to halt the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which the court denied on July 23.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dronenberg-stay-denied-7-23-13.pdf |title=Dronenburg-stay-denied-7-23-13 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> He later withdrew his petition on August 2.<ref name="utsandiego.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/02/dronenburg-drops-prop8-petition/ |title=County clerk withdraws Prop. 8 petition |publisher=utsandiego.com |date=August 2, 2013 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref> On August 14, 2013, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Prop.-8-CA-SCt-denies-mandate-8-14-13.pdf |title=IN THE SUPREME COURT IN CALIFORNIA |date=August 14, 2013 |access-date=May 31, 2021}}</ref> The last attempt to resume Proposition 8 failed and the case is now closed.<ref name="scotusblog.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/08/prop-8-case-ends/ |title="Proposition 8" case ends |publisher=SCOTUSblog |date=August 14, 2013 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref>

In November 2021, the Ninth Circuit agreed to release to the public unsealed videos from the Proposition 8 trial. Supporters of Proposition 8 had argued the videos should remain sealed, but the Ninth Circuit ruled that they lacked standing because they failed to show they would suffer a concrete injury if the videos were made public.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-oks-unsealing-videos-from-landmark-gay-marriage-trial/|title=Ninth Circuit OKs unsealing videos from landmark gay marriage trial|work=Courthouse News Services|date=November 18, 2021}}</ref> The Supreme Court denied review without comment on October 11, 2022.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/12-years-after-landmark-Prop-8-trial-Supreme-17502125.php|title=12 years after landmark Prop. 8 trial, Supreme Court makes videos public|work=San Francisco Chronicle|date=October 11, 2022|last=Egelko|first=Bob}}</ref> "While it is great news that the recordings of this landmark trial have finally been made public, it never should have taken 12 years to get them unsealed.", said a spokesman for the [[Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rcfp.org/prop-8-trial-recordings-unsealed/|title=12 years later, recordings of California same-sex marriage trial are finally public|work=Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press|date=October 19, 2022|last=Young|first=Chris}}</ref>

==Legality of 2004 San Francisco marriages==
[[File:Lyonmartinwedding5.JPG|thumb|right|Mayor [[Gavin Newsom]] issuing the first marriage license to a same-sex couple, [[Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon]], on February 12, 2004, San Francisco]]
City officials in San Francisco claimed that although the 2004 marriages were prohibited by state law, the state law was invalidated by the [[Equal Protection Clause]]. Mayor Gavin Newsom echoed this view, permitting the marriages because he believed the state law was unconstitutional. However, legislators and groups opposing same-sex marriages quickly reacted, filing a suit and requesting a court order to prevent the city from performing the ceremonies. Additionally, the California state agency that records marriages stated that altered forms, including any marriage license issued to same-sex couples, would not be registered. In '' Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco'', the Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop performing same-sex marriages pending court review on the legality of the marriages on March 11, 2004, and ultimately voided all the marriages on August 12, 2004.<ref name="nullify"/>

Officials in [[Berkeley, California|Berkeley]] and [[Oakland, California|Oakland]], in nearby [[Alameda County, California|Alameda County]], expressed interest in joining San Francisco,<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/attachments/6726.pdf |title=Oakland City Council: Resolution No. 78483 |access-date=November 14, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115015159/http://clerkwebsvr1.oaklandnet.com/attachments/6726.pdf |archive-date=November 15, 2017 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.cityofberkeley.info/council7/council.html |title=Council Items through 2003 to 2008 |access-date=November 14, 2017 |archive-date=November 15, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115082859/https://www.cityofberkeley.info/council7/council.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> but were unable to do so because marriage licenses are handled at a county, rather than at a city, level. San Francisco was able to issue its own licenses because San Francisco is [[Consolidated city-county|both a city and a county]].

==Native American nations==
California is home to hundreds of [[Indigenous peoples of California|indigenous peoples]], many of whom have traditions of [[two-spirit]] individuals who were born male but wore women's clothing and performed everyday household work and artistic handiwork which were regarded as belonging to the feminine sphere. This two-spirit status allowed for marriages between two biological males or two biological females to be performed among some of these tribes. Same-sex marriage is legal on the reservations of the [[Blue Lake Rancheria]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://bluelakerancheria-nsn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/01-01.pdf|title=Blue Lake Rancheria Marriage Ordinance|website=Blue Lake Rancheria|accessdate=August 8, 2022}}</ref> the [[Colorado River Indian Tribes]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.crit-nsn.gov/crit_contents/ordinances/C_DRC%20Article%202-Marriage%20and%20Divorce_08082019.pdf|title=Domestic Relations Code: Article 2: Marriage and Divorce|website=www.crit-nsn.gov|access-date=September 19, 2019}}</ref> and the [[Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel]]. The latter was the first tribe in California to legalize same-sex marriage when they announced in the wake of the ''Perry'' ruling in June 2013 that they would allow same-sex couples to marry on their reservation. "Although the Tribe has certainly come far, they won't ever forget the sting of prejudice, or stand passively by when others suffer discrimination or denial of basic human rights. Native Americans have fought hard to establish and protect their own rights, and Santa Ysabel is determined to support our own, and other same sex couples in their struggle to be recognized and treated fairly as citizens of this great nation", said Virgil Perez, the tribal chairman.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/28/santa-ysabel-tribe-first-california-support-same-sex-marriage-150179 |title=Santa Ysabel Tribe First in California to Support Same-Sex Marriage|website=Indian Country Today Media Network|date=June 28, 2013|access-date=June 14, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141204234812/http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/28/santa-ysabel-tribe-first-california-support-same-sex-marriage-150179|archive-date=December 4, 2014}}</ref> The [[Yurok Indian Reservation|Yurok Tribe]] has a gender-neutral marriage ordinance that defines marriage as "the union of two individuals by any ceremony or practice recognized under Yurok law, and includes marriages according to Yurok custom and tradition."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://yurok.tribal.codes/YTC/13.05.030|title=Yurok Tribal Code, Title 13: Family Code, Chapter 13.05|work=Yurok Tribe|accessdate=August 22, 2022}}</ref> The [[Karuk Tribe]] also has a gender-neutral marriage law.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://karuk.tribal.codes/KTC/10.05_ArtIII|title=Karuk Tribal Code, Title 10: Children and Family, Chapter 10.05|access-date=August 22, 2022|publisher=Karuk Tribe}}</ref>

===Two-spirit marriages===
The [[Luiseño]], an indigenous people living from the present-day southern part of [[Los Angeles County, California|Los Angeles County]] to the northern part of [[San Diego County, California|San Diego County]], have traditionally recognized two-spirit individuals who wore women's clothing and performed everyday household work and artistic handiwork which were regarded as belonging to the feminine sphere. They are known in [[Luiseño language|their language]] as {{lang|lui|kwit}} ({{IPA|lui|kʷɪt|pron}}). The ''kwit'', known as "robust workers", married [[cisgender]] men, and were sometimes wives in [[Polygyny|polygynous]] chieftain households.<ref name="lang">{{cite book|title=Men as women, women as men: changing gender in Native American cultures|url=https://archive.org/details/menaswomenwomena0000lang|url-access=registration|author=Sabine Lang|publisher=University of Texas Press |year=1998 |isbn=0-292-74701-2}}</ref> The [[Mohave people]] of [[Southern California]] refer to two-spirit individuals who crossed out of the masculine gender as {{lang|mov|ʼalyha}} ({{IPA|mov|ʔəlʲˈhaː|pron}}). The ''ʼalyha'' married men and were regarded as "especially diligent wives", often sought out by [[Shamanism|shamans]]. They were spiritually important for the tribe as they were considered great healers, as were the {{lang|mov|hwame}} ({{IPA|mov|hʷaˈmeː|pron}}), individuals who were born female but wore men's clothing and performed men's activities. The ''hwame'' married women, and could claim paternity of a child if they married a pregnant woman. Living together with an ''ʼalyha'' or a ''hwame'' followed the same patterns as did the establishment and dissolution of opposite-sex marriages.<ref name="lang"/><ref>{{cite book |title=Institutionalized homosexuality of the Mohave Indians |date=1937|publisher=Human Biology|volume=9|last=Devereux|first=G}}</ref> The [[Chumash people]] who live in modern-day [[Santa Barbara County, California|Santa Barbara County]] call two-spirit people {{lang|boi|ʼaqi}} ({{IPA|boi|ˈʔaqi|pron}}). They "live[d] as women, and kept company with them", and married cisgender men.<ref>{{cite book|title=Archaeologies of Sexuality|publisher=Routledge|date=June 28, 2005|last1=Schmidt|first1=Robert|last2=Voss|first2=Barbara|isbn=1134593848|page=186}}</ref> The [[Salinan]] call them {{lang|sln|coya}} ({{IPA|sln|ˈʃo.ja|pron}}). They "lived as women, associated with them, wore the same dress [...] and enjoyed great consideration among their companions", married men, and also helped with raising young girls in the tribe. The ''coya'' were violently persecuted by Spanish colonizers, with explorer [[Pedro Fages]] ordering the execution of several ''coya'' in 1769, and they gradually disappeared with the [[Spanish missions in California]].<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://nycstandswithstandingrock.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/miranda-2010.pdf|title=Extermination of the Joyas – Gendercide in Spanish California|journal=Duke University Press|first=Deborah|last=Mirande|date=2010|doi=10.1215/10642684-2009-022|s2cid=145480469 }}</ref> Among the [[Yokuts]] of the [[San Joaquin Valley]], two-spirit individuals are known as {{lang|yok|tonocim}} ({{IPA|yok|t̪oˈŋotʃim|pron}}). They were the "leaders of the mourning ceremony held immediately after the death", though would only take the "profession if they had received instructions to do so in a dream".<ref>{{cite book|title=Women in Prehistory: North America and Mesoamerica|page=180|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|last1=Claassen|first=Cheryl|last2=Joyce|first2=Rosemary|date=1997|isbn=0812216024}}</ref> The ''tonocim'' were spiritually important for the tribe, but generally did not marry men or women. The [[Mono people]] call them {{lang|mnr|onotim}} ({{IPA|mnr|oˈnotim|pron}}),<ref name="lang"/> and the [[Kawaiisu]] call them {{lang|xaw|huˀyupɨzi}} ({{IPA|xaw|huʔjuˈpɨzi|pron}}).<ref>{{cite book|title=Kawaiisu - A Grammar and Dictionary with Texts|last1=Zigmond|first1=Maurice|last2=Booth|first2=Curtis|first3=Pamela|last3=Munro|isbn=0520097475|page=207|publisher=University of California Press|volume=119|date=November 21, 1990}}</ref>

Among the numerous Native American cultures of the [[North Coast (California)|North Coast]], two-spirit individuals would generally remain unmarried. The [[Yurok]] refer to two-spirit people as {{lang|yur|wergern}} ({{IPA|yur|wɚˈɣɚn|pron}}). They were said to have been "impelled by the desire to become shamans", a profession generally reserved to women.<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Constitution of Inequality in Yurok Society|page=176|last=Lesure|first=Richard G.|journal=Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology|volume=20|date=1998}}</ref> In the [[Kashaya language]], two-spirit people are known as {{lang|kju|hiʔbaya capʰya}} ({{IPA|kju|hiʔbaˈja ˈtʃapʰja|pron}}).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.webonary.org/kashaya/gf7f74fc4-bc74-4c77-a301-1b4e7901bee0/|title=Kashaya Dictionary: capʰya|work=Webonary|accessdate=August 14, 2022}}</ref> They performed women's activities such as [[basket weaving]]. [[Edward Winslow Gifford]] wrote in 1926 of a [[Pomo]] two-spirit, "Many men associated with him for short periods, some sleeping with him. None married him permanently."<ref name="lang"/> The [[Yuki people]], who live in modern-day [[Mendocino County, California|Mendocino County]], refer to two-spirit individuals as {{lang|yuk|íwamusp}} ({{IPA|yuk|ˈiːwɒmʊsp|pron}}). The ''íwamusp'' wore women's clothing, performed women's activities, were [[tattoo]]ed like women, and lived with and married men.<ref name="lang"/> The [[Cahto people]], who live at the head of the [[South Fork Eel River]], call two-spirit individuals {{lang|ktw|tc'eek-aaldeeltcii}} ({{IPA|ath|tʃʼeːkʰ aːlˈteːltʃʰiː|pron}}).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.webonary.org/cahto/gb530de1c-d654-496d-a1e9-380cf4e0a1e8/|title=Cahto Dictionary: tcʾeek aaldeeltcii|work=Webonary|accessdate=August 22, 2022}}</ref> They married men, and were known for their basket weaving. An anthropologist noted in 1942 that a Cahto man "may make coarse baskets without reflecting on his masculinity but a male maker of fine baskets is suspected of homosexual tendencies". The [[Nomlaki]], native to the [[Sacramento Valley]], call them {{lang|nol|walusa}} ({{IPA|nol|ˈwaːlʊsʌ|pron}}). They reportedly "pound[ed] [[acorn]]s, gather[ed] seeds, and act[ed] like women".<ref>{{cite book|url=https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/ucp042-005.pdf|title=Nomlaki Ethnography|last=Goldschmidt|first=Walter|publisher=University of California Press|date=1951|volume=42}}</ref> The [[Plains and Sierra Miwok]] refer to two-spirit individuals as {{lang|csm|ʔóš·apu}} ({{IPA|csm|ˈʔoʃːapu|pron}}), and the [[Nisenan]] refer to them as {{lang|nsz|ʔosa·pu}} ({{IPA|nsz|ʔoˈsaːpu|pron}}). Both would marry men.<ref>{{cite book|title=Nisenan Texts and Dictionary|url= http://www.foresthillhistory.org/index_htm_files/Nisenan%20Language%20Book%201...pdf|page=243|first1=Hans|last1=Jørgen Uldall|first2=William|last2=Shipley|publisher=University of California Press|date=1966|isbn= 0520092414}}</ref>

Among the [[Shasta people]], who live in present-day [[Siskiyou County, California|Siskiyou County]], two-spirit individuals, known as {{lang|sht|kitúk̓uwaˑxiˀ}} ({{IPA|sht|kìtúk’ùwàːxìʔ|pron}}), wore women's clothing and performed the occupations of both sexes. They generally remained unmarried and lived independent lives, forming relationships with neither men nor women.<ref name="lang"/><ref>{{cite book|url=https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/proof/pdfs/kas020-002.pdf|title=A Shasta Vocabulary|publisher=Kroeber Anthropological Society|date=1959|first=William|last=Bright}}</ref> The [[Modoc people]] refer to two-spirit individuals as {{lang|kla|tʼwiniˑqʼ}} ({{IPA|kla|ˈt’wɪniːq’|pron}}).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ksw.shoin.ac.jp/spaelti/Klamath/files_pdf/Klamath_Dictionary.pdf|title=Klamath Dictionary: tʼwiniˑqʼ|accessdate=August 19, 2022|work=ksw.shoin.ac.jp}}</ref> The ''tʼwiniˑqʼ'' wore women's clothing and "behaved as women". They married cisgender men, and usually took the role of a shaman and were credited with great spiritual power. In the [[Achumawi language]], they are known as {{lang|acv|yáh̓aawálu}} ({{IPA|acv|jə́ʜàːwə́lʊ̀|pron}}).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.webonary.org/odissi/g1a9d468a-530b-4906-b763-98887397742d/|title=Achumawi Dictionary: yáh̓aawálu|work=Webonary|accessdate=August 22, 2022}}</ref> They were said to have "special functions in connection with burial festivities", and would traditionally marry men. Two-spirit people held a similar status and position in [[Atsugewi]] society where they are known as {{lang|atw|yah'wa}} ({{IPA|atw|jáːh.wˀà|pron}}).<ref>{{cite book|title=Atsugwei Ethnography|url=https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/anthpubs/ucb/text/ucar014-003.pdf|last=Garth|first=Thomas|date=1953|publisher=University of California Press|volume=14|issue=2}}</ref> Among the [[Yana people]], two-spirit people had "male genitals [but] dressed like women and did all kinds of women's work. They were not ridiculed, on the other hand, they were shamans." They are known as {{lang|ynn|lôya}} ({{IPA|ynn|lɔːˈja|pron}}).<ref>{{cite book|title=Notes On The Culture Of The Yana|last1=Sapir|first1=Edward|last2=Spier|first2=Leslie|publisher=University of California Press|date=January 1, 1943|volume=3|page=275|issue=3}}</ref> In [[Tolowa language|Tolowa]], two-spirit is translated as {{lang|tol|naaxe me’staa~ni}} ({{IPA|ath|náːxe méʔstãːni|pron}}).

==Demographics and marriage statistics==
Data from the [[2000 United States census|2000 U.S. census]] showed that 92,138 same-sex couples were living in California. By 2005, this had increased to 107,772 couples, likely attributed to same-sex couples' growing willingness to disclose their partnerships on government surveys. Same-sex couples lived in all counties of the state, and constituted 1.4% of coupled households and 0.8% of all households in the state. Most couples lived in [[Los Angeles County, California|Los Angeles]], [[San Francisco]] and [[San Diego County, California|San Diego]] counties, but the counties with the highest percentage of same-sex couples were San Francisco (2.70% of all county households) and [[Sonoma County, California|Sonoma]] (1.23%). Same-sex partners in California were on average younger than opposite-sex partners, and more likely to be employed. In addition, the average and median household incomes of same-sex couples were higher than different-sex couples, but same-sex couples were far less likely to own a home than opposite-sex partners. 18% of same-sex couples in California were raising children under the age of 18, with an estimated 37,311 children living in households headed by same-sex couples in 2005.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://escholarship.org/content/qt4xq120m0/qt4xq120m0.pdf?t=lnp78k|title=Census Snapshot|accessdate=August 30, 2022|work=Williams Institute}}</ref>

[[Marriage license]]s were issued to 4,037 same-sex couples in 2004 in San Francisco before the California Supreme Court issued its stay.<ref name="NYT_ed">{{cite news| last = Murphy| first = Dean E.| title = San Francisco Married 4,037 Same-Sex Pairs From 46 States | newspaper=[[New York Times]]| date = March 18, 2004| url = https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/us/san-francisco-married-4037-same-sex-pairs-from-46-states.html | access-date =February 21, 2012}}</ref> During the same period, the [[San Francisco City Hall]] issued 103 opposite-sex marriage licenses. Of those same-sex marriage licenses issued, 82 couples either decided not to go through with a marriage or failed to register their marriage with the county before the California Supreme Court stay was issued, meaning 3,955 completed same-sex marriages were registered in the county.<ref>{{cite news | newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle | title=Timeline of same-sex marriage in California | date=February 8, 2012 | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/07/BANB1N4871.DTL | access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref> By reviewing the first names of the applicants, San Francisco officials estimated that 57% of the same-sex married couples were women. Demographic information gleaned from the registered licenses also showed that the newlywed same-sex couples were older: more than 74% were over age 35, while 69% had at least one college degree.<ref name="NYT_ed" /> According to figures released on March 17, 2004 by San Francisco County Assessor [[Mabel Teng]], although 91.4% of the licenses were granted to couples living in California, other couples came from every state in the United States except for [[Maine]], [[Mississippi]], [[West Virginia]] and [[Wyoming]].<ref name="NYT_ed" /> The top five states represented included 32 couples each from [[Washington (state)|Washington]] and [[Oregon]], 24 from [[Nevada]], 20 from [[New York (state)|New York]] and 16 from [[Florida]]. International same-sex couples, 17 in all, came from [[Canada]], [[Denmark]], [[France]], [[Germany]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Switzerland]], [[Thailand]], the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Venezuela]].

==Public opinion==
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"
|+style="font-size:100%" | Public opinion for same-sex marriage in California
|-
! Poll source
! Dates administered
! Sample size
! Margin of error
! Support
! Opposition
! Don't know / refused
|-
| [https://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2023/States/lgbt_ssm/m/US-CA Public Religion Research Institute]
| [https://www.prri.org/research/views-on-lgbtq-rights-in-all-50-states/ March 9 – December 7, 2023]
| 2,162 adults
| ± 0.82% {{sup|1}}
| {{Yes|'''68%'''}}
| 29%
| 3%
|-
| [http://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2022/States/lgbt_ssm/m/US-CA Public Religion Research Institute]
| [http://ava.prri.org/methodology-2022 March 11–December 14, 2022]
| ?
| ?
| {{Yes|'''72%'''}}
| 26%
| 2%
|-
| [http://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2021/States/lgbt_ssm/m/US-CA Public Religion Research Institute]
| [http://ava.prri.org/methodology-2021 March 8–November 9, 2021]
| ?
| ?
| {{Yes|'''71%'''}}
| 27%
| 2%
|-
| [http://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2020/States/lgbt_ssm/m/US-CA Public Religion Research Institute]
| [http://ava.prri.org/methodology-2020 January 7–December 20, 2020]
| 5,415 random telephone<br/>interviewees
| ?
| {{Yes|'''75%'''}}
| 22%
| 3%
|-
| [http://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2017/States/lgbt_ssm/m/US-CA Public Religion Research Institute]
| [http://ava.prri.org/methodology-2017 April 5–December 23, 2017]
| 7,260 random telephone<br/>interviewees
| ?
| {{Yes|'''66%'''}}
| 23%
| 11%
|-
| [http://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2016/States/lgbt_ssm/m/US-CA Public Religion Research Institute]
| [http://ava.prri.org/methodology-2016 May 18, 2016–January 10, 2017]
| 9,640 random telephone<br/>interviewees
| ?
| {{Yes|'''66%'''}}
| 24%
| 10%
|-
| [http://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2015/States/lgbt_ssm/m/US-CA Public Religion Research Institute]
| [http://ava.prri.org/methodology-2015 April 29, 2015–January 7, 2016]
| 7,671 random telephone<br/>interviewees
| ?
| {{Yes|'''60%'''}}
| 30%
| 9%
|-
| [http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/CA/governor/exitpoll Edison Research]
| November 4, 2014
| ?
| ?
| {{Yes|'''61%'''}}
| 35%
| 4%
|-
| [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1014MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| October 12–19, 2014
| 1,704 adult residents
| ± 3.5%
| {{Yes|'''56%'''}}
| 36%
| 8%
|-
| [https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/09/07/battleground-tracker-2014-national-attitudes/ New York Times/CBS News/YouGov]
| September 20–October 1, 2014
| 7,943 likely voters
| ± 1.6%
| {{Yes|'''58%'''}}
| 32%
| 12%
|-
| [http://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2014/States/lgbt_ssm/m/US-CA Public Religion Research Institute]
| [http://ava.prri.org/methodology-2014 April 2, 2014–January 4, 2015]
| 4,506 random telephone<br/>interviewees
| ?
| {{Yes|'''61%'''}}
| 31%
| 8%
|-
| [http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014.LGBT_REPORT.pdf Public Religion Research Institute]
| November 12–December 18, 2013
| 408 random telephone<br/>interviewees
| ± 5.6%
| {{Yes|'''59%'''}}
| 37%
| 5%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_913MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | September 10–17, 2013
| 1,703 adult residents
| ± 3.7%
| {{Yes|'''61%'''}}
| 34%
| 5%
|-
| 1,102 likely voters
| ± 4.5%
| {{Yes|'''64%'''}}
| 32%
| 4%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_113MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 align=center | May 14–20, 2013
| 1,704 adult residents
| ± 3.8%
| {{Yes|'''56%'''}}
| 38%
| 6%
|-
| 1,129 likely voters
| ± 4.6%
| {{Yes|'''59%'''}}
| 36%
| 5%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2443.pdf Field Poll]
| February 5–17, 2013
| 834 adults
| ± 4.2%
| {{Yes|'''61%'''}}
| 32%
| 7%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_113MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | January 15–22, 2013
| 1,704 adult residents
| ± 3.5%
| {{Yes|'''53%'''}}
| 41%
| 6%
|-
| 1,116 likely voters
| ± 4.2%
| {{Yes|'''54%'''}}
| 40%
| 5%
|-
| [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_512MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| May 14–20, 2012
| 894 likely voters
| ± 3.5%
| {{Yes|'''56%'''}}
| 37%
| 7%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_310MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 align=center | February 21–28, 2012
| 2,001 adult residents
| ± 3.4%
| {{Yes|'''52%'''}}
| 41%
| 6%
|-
| 859 likely voters
| ± 4.2%
| {{Yes|'''56%'''}}
| 38%
| 6%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2406.pdf Field Poll]
| February 2–18, 2012
| 1,003 adults
| ± 4.5%
| {{Yes|'''59%'''}}
| 34%
| 7%
|-
| [http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CA_0204.pdf Public Policy Polling]
| November 10–13, 2011
| 500 voters
| ± 4.4%
| {{Yes|''48%''}}
| 43%
| 9%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_911MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | September 6–13, 2011
| 2,002 adult residents
| ± 3.6%
| {{Yes|'''53%'''}}
| 42%
| 5%
|-
| 958 likely voters
| ± 4.2%
| {{Yes|'''53%'''}}
| 42%
| 4%
|-
| [http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_CA_0204.pdf Public Policy Polling]
| January 28–30, 2011
| 892 voters
| ± 3.3%
| {{Yes|'''51%'''}}
| 40%
| 10%
|-
| [http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2010/PPP_Release_CA_922513.pdf Public Policy Polling]
| September 14–16, 2010
| 630 likely voters
| ± 3.9%
| {{Yes|''46%''}}
| 44%
| 10%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2349.pdf Field Poll]
| June 22–July 5, 2010
| 1,390 adults
| ± 2.8%
| {{Yes|'''51%'''}}
| 42%
| 7%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_310MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | March 9–16, 2010
| 2,002 adult residents
| ± 2%
| {{Yes|''50%''}}
| 45%
| 5%
|-
| 1,102 likely voters
| ± 3%
| {{Yes|''49%''}}
| 45%
| 6%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_309MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | March 10–17, 2009
| 2,004 adult residents
| ± 2%
| 44%
| {{No|''49%''}}
| 7%
|-
| 987 likely voters
| ± 3%
| 45%
| {{No|''49%''}}
| 6%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2301.pdf Field Poll]
| February 20–March 1, 2009
| 761 adults
| ± 3.6%
| {{Yes|''49%''}}
| 44%
| 7%
|-
| [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1208MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| November 5–16, 2008
| 2,003 adult residents
| ± 2%
| 47%
| {{No|''48%''}}
| 5%
|-
| [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1008MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| October 12–19, 2008
| 2,004 adult residents
| ± 2%
| 44%
| {{No|''50%''}}
| 6%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_808MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | August 12–19, 2008
| 2,001 adult residents
| ± 2%
| 45%
| {{No|''48%''}}
| 7%
|-
| 1,047 likely voters
| ± 3%
| ''47%''
| ''47%''
| 6%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2268.pdf Field Poll]
| May 17–26, 2008
| 1,052 adults
| ± 3.2%
| {{Yes|'''51%'''}}
| 42%
| 7%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_607MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | June 12–19, 2007
| 2,003 adult residents
| ± 2%
| 45%
| {{No|''49%''}}
| 6%
|-
| 983 likely voters
| ± 3%
| 46%
| {{No|''48%''}}
| 6%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_906MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 align=center | September 13–20, 2006
| 2,003 adult residents
| ± 2%
| 44%
| {{No|''48%''}}
| 8%
|-
| 1091 likely voters
| ± 3%
| {{Yes|''47%''}}
| 46%
| 7%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2189.pdf Field Poll]
| February 12–26, 2006
| 1,000 adults
| ± 3.2%
| 43%
| {{No|'''51%'''}}
| 6%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2268.pdf Field Poll]
| 2006
| ?
| ?
| 44%
| {{No|''50%''}}
| 6%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_805MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 align=center | August 8–15, 2005
| 2,004 adult residents
| ± 2%
| 44%
| {{No|''48%''}}
| 8%
|-
| 988 likely voters
| ± 3%
| ''46%''
| ''46%''
| 8%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2118.pdf Field Poll]
| May 18–24, 2004
| 745 adults
| ± 5.2%
| 43%
| {{No|'''53%'''}}
| 4%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2109.pdf Field Poll]
| February 18–22, 2004
| 958 adults
| ± 3.3%
| 44%
| {{No|''50%''}}
| 6%
|-
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_204MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| rowspan=2 colspan=1 | February 8–16, 2004
| 2,004 adult residents
| ± 2%
| 44%
| {{No|''50%''}}
| 6%
|-
| 1,013 likely voters
| ± 3%
| 43%
| {{No|'''51%'''}}
| 6%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-03-Aug-GayRights.pdf Field Poll]
| August 10–13, 2003
| 1,036 adults
| ± 5.8%
| 42%
| {{No|''50%''}}
| 8%
|-
| [http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_100MBS.pdf Public Policy Institute of California]
| January 2–10, 2000
| 1,031 likely voters
| ± 3.5%
| 38%
| {{No|'''55%'''}}
| 7%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Release1832.pdf Field Poll]
| February 11–17, 1997
| 1,045 adults
| ± 3.3%
| 38%
| {{No|'''56%'''}}
| 6%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-03-Aug-GayRights.pdf Field Poll]
| 1997
| ?
| ?
| 39%
| {{No|'''55%'''}}
| 6%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-03-Aug-GayRights.pdf Field Poll]
| 1985
| ?
| ?
| 30%
| {{No|'''62%'''}}
| 8%
|-
| [http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-03-Aug-GayRights.pdf Field Poll]
| 1977
| ?
| ?
| 28%
| {{No|'''59%'''}}
| 13%
|-
|}
'''Notes:'''
* {{sup|1}} 95% level of confidence, including the design effect for the survey of 1.56%

==Timeline==
[[File:SF-City Hall Line SS-Marriage group.JPG|thumb|right|Same-sex couples gather at San Francisco City Hall during the [[Valentine's Day]] weekend in 2004 to apply for marriage licenses.]]
[[File:SF-City Hall Line SS-Marriage.JPG|thumb|right|The line of same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses stretched for blocks around San Francisco City Hall in February 2004.]]
*February 12, 2004: Mayor [[Gavin Newsom]] and other city officials began issuing marriage licenses in [[San Francisco]]. [[Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon]] were the first same-sex couple to be married. The event was intended to undercut a legal challenge planned by the [[Campaign for California Families]] (CCF).
*March 9, 2004: The [[San Jose City Council]], by a vote of 8–1, agreed to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions for city employees.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2004/03/10/san-jose-recognizes-gay-marriage/ |title=San Jose recognizes gay marriage |newspaper=Chicago Tribune |date=March 10, 2004 |access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref>  
*March 11, 2004: The Supreme Court of California issued a stay ordering San Francisco to stop performing same-sex marriages pending court review on the legality of the matter. Mayor Newsom agreed to abide by the order. The ruling did not alter a scheduled March 29 [[San Francisco Superior Court]] hearing before Judge Ronald Quidachay in which the Campaign for California Families and the [[Alliance Defense Fund]] claimed that San Francisco's granting of same-sex marriage licenses was illegal. Quidachay later delayed the hearing pending action by the California Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=210 |title=Herrera Files Briefs With Supreme Court on Issue of Municipal Authority for Same-Sex Licenses |publisher=[[Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco]] |date=March 11, 2004 |access-date=February 21, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120210190817/http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=210 |archive-date=February 10, 2012 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
*May 25, 2004: The California Supreme Court held hearings on the legality of the marriages. San Francisco had wanted its case heard first by lower courts rather than by the state Supreme Court. However, the court suggested that San Francisco could file its own suit against the state, and the city launched such a suit that afternoon.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/181961-2 |title=California Same Sex Marriage Cases |publisher=[[C-SPAN]] |date=May 25, 2004 |access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref>
*August 12, 2004: The state Supreme Court released its decision, exactly six months after the first same-sex marriages were performed in San Francisco. The court ruled unanimously that San Francisco had exceeded its authority and violated state law by issuing the marriage licenses. In a 5–2 decision, the court also declared all same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco to be void, while expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of marriage restrictions.<ref name="nullify">{{cite news |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/gay-marriage-2004.html |title=CALIFORNIA COURT NULLIFIES SAME-SEX MARRIAGES |publisher=[[PBS News Hour]] |date=August 12, 2004 |access-date=February 21, 2012 |archive-date=February 20, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120220192732/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/gay-marriage-2004.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> 
*March 14, 2005: In the case of ''[[In re Marriage Cases]]'', Judge [[Richard Kramer (judge)|Richard Kramer]] of the [[San Francisco County Superior Court]] ruled that California's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf |title=Marriage Cases |publisher=Superior Court of California, San Francisco |date=March 14, 2005 |access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref>
*May 15, 2008: The California Supreme Court released its decision in ''In re Marriage Cases'', applying [[strict scrutiny]] to the state's discrimination between [[Heterosexuality|heterosexual]] and homosexual citizens. Marriage was found to be a fundamental right that may not be denied based on [[sexual orientation]], and the relevant laws were struck down.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-gay-marriage17-2008may17,0,7229587.story |title=California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=May 16, 2008 |first=Maura |last=Dolan |access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref>
*June 16, 2008: Same-sex marriage became legal in California.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jun-13-me-marriageqa13-story.html |title=The first bells ring at 5:01 p.m. Monday |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=June 13, 2008 |first=Rong-Gong |last=Lin II  |access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref> Counties started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples during regular hours on June 17.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1951520,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100107044904/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1951520,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 7, 2010 |title=A Gay-Marriage Lawsuit Dares to Make Its Case |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=January 5, 2010 |first=Michael |last=Lindenberger |access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref>
*November 4, 2008: Proposition 8 was passed by California voters.<ref name='statementofvote'>{{cite web |url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/sov_complete.pdf |title=Statement of Vote: 2008 General Election |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |date=December 13, 2008 |access-date=February 21, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121018225250/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/sov_complete.pdf |archive-date=October 18, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Same-sex marriages were no longer legal from November 5, 2008.
*May 23, 2009: ''[[Hollingsworth v. Perry|Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'' was filed in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California]] to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 on behalf of two same-sex couples.<ref name="NYT_20090527">{{cite news |last=McKinley |first=Jesse |title=Bush v. Gore Foes Join to Fight Gay Marriage Ban |newspaper=[[New York Times]] |date=May 27, 2009 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/28marriage.html |access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref>
*May 26, 2009: The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in ''[[Strauss v. Horton]]'', but did not overturn previous same-sex marriages.<ref>{{cite news |last=Egelko |first=Bob |title=Prop. 8 stands; more ballot battles ahead |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |date=May 27, 2009 |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/26/BAE017PTAD.DTL |access-date=February 21, 2012}}</ref>
*August 4, 2010: U.S. District Judge [[Vaughn Walker]] declared the ban unconstitutional but [[Stay of execution|stayed]] his ruling pending appeal.<ref name="McKINLEY">[https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban in California]</ref>
*August 5, 2010: Both sides submitted legal briefs to Judge Walker arguing for or against a long-term stay of the ruling.<ref name="ReutersStay">{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0515996820100805 |title=Gay marriage appeal notice filed, long battle ahead |work=Reuters|access-date=September 12, 2013 |date=August 5, 2010}}</ref>
*August 7, 2010: Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]], who had vetoed same-sex marriage legislation on two earlier occasions, and Attorney General [[Jerry Brown]], both filed motions with Judge Walker, urging him not to stay his ruling any longer. Lawyers representing Schwarzenegger wrote, "The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.lvrj.com/news/schwarzenegger--let-same-sex-weddings-resume-now-100187044.html |title=Schwarzenegger: Let same-sex weddings resume now |agency=Associated Press |author=Paul Elias |date=August 7, 2010 |access-date=August 22, 2011}}</ref>
*August 12, 2010: Judge Walker scheduled to lift his stay for same-sex marriages to resume during the appeals process, but instead issued a stay until August 18 to allow opponents to file an appeal with the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/california-gay-marriage-hold-judge-extends-stay-august/story?id=11383556#.T0ML7PES2Ag |title=Gay Marriages Remain Temporarily on Hold, Judge Rules |work=[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] |author=Devin Dwyer |date=August 12, 2010 |access-date=February 21, 2011}}</ref>
*November 17, 2011: The California Supreme Court ruled, in ''Perry v. Brown'', that sponsors of Proposition 8 have the right to defend the initiative in court, allowing the case to be heard in the Ninth Circuit.<ref name="courtinfo1">[https://web.archive.org/web/20111219213100/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S189476.PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA: Perry v. Brown]</ref>
*February 7, 2012: A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled, 2–1, that the ban on same-sex marriage in California was unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web |last=Goodwin |first=Liz |url=https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/court-overturns-prop-8-california-says-state-t-181451250.html |title=Prop. 8 overturned in California, court says state can't ban gay marriage |publisher=Yahoo |date=February 7, 2012 |access-date=March 1, 2012}}</ref> The court stayed its decision pending an expected appeal.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?_r=1 |title=Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California |newspaper=nytimes.com |date=February 7, 2012 |access-date=September 12, 2013 |first=Adam |last=Nagourney}}</ref>
*June 5, 2012: A request for an ''[[en banc]]'' rehearing of the Ninth Circuit decision was denied.<ref name=noenbanc>{{cite web|url=http://coop.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/06/05/1016696ebofinal.pdf|title=Order|date=June 5, 2012|publisher= U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|access-date=June 5, 2012}}</ref>
*July 31, 2012: Proponents of Proposition 8 filed a petition for a writ of ''[[certiorari]]'' in the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's decision.<ref name="afer.org"/><ref name=Mintz>{{cite news|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20786293/proposition-8-case-headed-u-s-supreme-court|title=California's Proposition 8 case headed to U.S. Supreme Court|last=Mintz|first=Howard|date=June 5, 2012|work=[[San Jose Mercury News]]|access-date=June 5, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-10/california-gay-marriage-case-may-be-headed-to-supreme-court.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213203048/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-10/california-gay-marriage-case-may-be-headed-to-supreme-court.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 13, 2012|title=California Gay Marriage Case May Be Headed to Supreme Court|last=Gullo|first=Karen|author2=Andrew Harris|date=February 10, 2012|work=[[Bloomberg Businessweek]]|access-date=May 20, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/prop-8-to-the-supreme-court_n_1571509.html|title=Prop 8 To The Supreme Court? California Gay Marriage Ban Backers Look Ahead|last=Leff|first=Lisa|date=June 5, 2012|work=[[The Huffington Post|HuffPost San Francisco]]|access-date=June 9, 2012}}</ref>
*December 7, 2012: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear challenges to the Ninth Circuit's finding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. 
*June 26, 2013: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the appellants lacked legal standing under federal law. It ordered the Ninth Circuit to void their ruling, leaving Walker's decision standing. The Supreme Court also overturned Section 3 of the federal ''[[Defense of Marriage Act]]'' in ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' that same day.
*June 28, 2013: The Ninth Circuit lifted its stay, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in California.<ref name="LA Times gay marriages resume">{{cite news|last=Dolan|first=Maura|title=Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-gay-marriage-20130628,0,1889039.story|access-date=June 29, 2013|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=June 28, 2013}}</ref> Governor Jerry Brown instructed all California county clerks to immediately begin issuing marriage licenses, and the first same-sex marriages since 2008 were performed.<ref>{{cite news|title=Prop 8 challengers wed in California after stay is lifted|url=http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/28/19194079-prop-8-challengers-wed-in-california-after-stay-is-lifted?lite|access-date=June 30, 2013|publisher=NBCnews.com|date=June 28, 2013}}</ref>
*June 29, 2013: Opponents of same-sex marriage filed an emergency petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the lifting of the stay issued by the Ninth Circuit.<ref name="reaction">{{cite news|title=California gay marriage opponents act to re-impose ban|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23116327|access-date=June 29, 2013|work=BBC News|date=June 29, 2013}}</ref>
*June 30, 2013: Supreme Court Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] denied the petition.<ref name="kennedy">{{cite news|last=Fieldstadt|first=Elisha|title=Justice Kennedy denies motion to halt gay marriage in California|url=http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/30/19219712-justice-kennedy-denies-motion-to-halt-gay-marriage-in-california|work=NBC News|date=June 30, 2013}}</ref>
*July 12, 2013: Proposition 8 supporters petitioned the California Supreme Court to order enforcement of Proposition 8 in the majority of the state's counties, arguing that Judge Walker had no jurisdiction to bar statewide enforcement, that his decision was binding only with respect to either the specific couples involved, or just the two counties in which those couples resided. They argued that California law requires continued enforcement until a ruling of an appeals court, and that of the Ninth Circuit decision had been vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite news|last=Williams|first=Pete|title=Prop. 8 backers make long-shot bid to stop same-sex marriage in California|url=http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/12/19441850-prop-8-backers-make-long-shot-bid-to-stop-same-sex-marriage-in-california|work=NBC NEWS|date=July 12, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Prop 8 Sponsors Ask California High Court To Stop Same-Sex Marriages|url=http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/12/prop-8-sponsors-ask-california-high-court-to-stop-same-sex-marriages/|publisher=KCBS|date=July 12, 2013}}</ref>
*July 15, 2013: The California Supreme Court declined to immediately halt same-sex marriages in response to the July 12 petition but announced it would hear briefs on the merits of the argument.<ref>{{cite news|last=Levine|first=Dan|title=California Supreme Court refuses to stop gay weddings|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gaymarriage-california-idUSBRE96E0VO20130715|work=Reuters|date=July 15, 2013}}</ref>
*July 19, 2013: San Diego County Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg Jr. petitioned the California Supreme Count to immediately halt same-sex marriages based on arguments similar to those of the July 12 petition.<ref>{{cite news|title=San Diego County Clerk Seeks to Stop Gay Marriages|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/us/san-diego-county-clerk-seeks-to-stop-gay-marriages.html?_r=0|newspaper=New York Times|date=July 20, 2013}}</ref>
*July 23, 2013: The California Supreme Court declined to immediately halt same-sex marriages in response to the July 19 petition.<ref>{{cite news|last=Dolan |first=Maura |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-20130723,0,7812395.story |title=California Supreme Court again refuses to stop gay marriage |newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=July 23, 2013 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}</ref>
*August 2, 2013: The petition in ''Dronenburg v. Brown'' to halt same-sex marriages filed on July 19 was withdrawn.<ref name="utsandiego.com"/>
*August 14, 2013: In a one-page order, the California Supreme Court denied a [[writ of mandate]] on the July 12 petition without comment, rejecting the last legal challenge to same-sex marriage in California.<ref>{{cite news|last=Johnson|first=Chris|title=California Supreme Court rejects attempt to revive Prop 8|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/08/14/california-supreme-court-rejects-attempt-to-revive-prop-8/|access-date=December 28, 2013|newspaper=The Washington Blade|date=August 14, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Williams|first=Pete|title=California top court refuses to stop gay marriage|url=http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/14/20027681-california-top-court-refuses-to-stop-gay-marriage?lite|publisher=[[NBCNews.com]]|date=August 14, 2013}}</ref>

==See also==
* ''[[8 (play)|8]]'', a play about the Proposition 8 trial
* ''[[8: The Mormon Proposition]]'', a documentary that examines [[the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] and its support of Proposition 8
* [[LGBT rights in California]]
* ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''
* ''[[Pursuit of Equality]]'', a documentary about the struggle for same-sex marriage
* [[Same-sex marriage in the United States]]

==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==External links==
{{commons category}}
*[http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199950-1 Video: ''In re Marriage Cases'' oral arguments], California Supreme Court, March 4, 2008
*[http://www.newday.com/films/OneWedding.html Documentary: ''One Wedding and a Revolution'']
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20130630210513/http://www.marriageequality.org/doma-prop8 Lambda Legal's Post-DOMA and Post-Prop 8 fact sheet], June 28, 2013

{{LGBT in California}}
{{Same-sex marriage in the United States}}

[[Category:LGBTQ rights in California]]
[[Category:Same-sex marriage in the United States by state|California]]
[[Category:2008 in LGBTQ history]]
[[Category:2008 in California]]
[[Category:2013 in LGBTQ history]]
[[Category:2013 in California]]
[[Category:Marriage in California]]
[[Category:LGBTQ history in California]]