Hollingsworth v. Perry

The sole purpose of Hollingsworth v. Perry is to attempt to REMOVE from Christians the opportunity to teach their children that MARRIAGE is between one man and one woman.  The sole purpose is to co-opt the traditional language of sacramental matrimony so as to remove the teeth from any moral AND civil assertion that same-sex unions are disordered and immoral.  To refer to same-sex unions as "civil unions" even with ALL constitutional rights left intact is not enough.  News media tries to portray the issue as a civil rights issue but with respect to Proposition 8 that is simply an outright lie.

Proposition 8 worked a singular and limited change to the California Constitution: it stripped same-sex couples of the right to have their committed relationships recognized by the State with the designation of ‘marriage,’ which the state constitution had previously guaranteed them, while leaving in place all of their other rights and responsibilities as partners—rights and responsibilities that are identical to those of married spouses and form an integral part of the marriage relationship.

Proposition 8 “leaves intact all of the other very significant constitutional protections afforded same-sex couples,” including “the constitutional right to enter into an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one’s choice and to raise children in that family if the couple so chooses.

[T]he amendment’s effect was to “establish [... ] a new substantive state constitutional rule [...] which “carves out anarrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights,” by “reserving the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law[.]

Section Summary: This language, which has been lifted directly from the Ninth Circuit Court's opinion now under Supreme Court review, makes clear that the only legal question is as follows. What will we call the same-sex union?

ALL OTHER rights accorded the legally sanctioned union between a man and a woman, which we call marriage, are preserved by the California Amendment (aka Proposition 8).

The language below was also lifted directly from the opinion now under Supreme Court review. When we say all other rights preserved we mean ALL OTHER RIGHTS.

Now as before, same-sex partners may:

• Raise children together, and have the same rights and obligations as to their children as spouses have, see Cal.Fam.Code § 297.5(d);

• Enjoy the presumption of parentage as to a child born to either partner, see Elisa B. v. Super. Ct. [37 Cal.4th 108, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 46], 117 P.3d 660, 670 (Cal.2005); Kristine M. v. David P., 135 Cal.App.4th 783 [37 Cal.Rptr.3d 748] (2006); or adopted by one partner and raised jointly by both, S.Y. v. S.B., 201 Cal.App.4th 1023 [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 1] (2011);

• Adopt each other’s children, see Cal. Fam.Code § 9000(g);

• Become foster parents, see Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 16013(a);

• Share community property, see Cal. Fam.Code § 297.5(k);

• File state taxes jointly, see Cal. Rev. & Tax.Code § 18521(d);

• Participate in a partner’s group health insurance policy on the same terms as a spouse, see Cal. Ins.Code § 10121.7;

• Enjoy hospital visitation privileges, see Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1261;

• Make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner, see Cal. Prob.Code § 4716;

• Be treated in a manner equal to that of a widow or widower with respect to a deceased partner, see Cal. Fam.Code §297.5(c);

• Serve as the conservator of a partner’s estate, see Cal. Prob.Code §§ 1811–1813.1; and

• Sue for the wrongful death of a partner, see Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 377.60—among many other things.

Proposition 8 did not affect these rights or any of the other “ ‘constitutionally based incidents of marriage’ ” guaranteed to same-sex couples and their families.

Hollingsworth v. Perry