Strauss v. Horton
Strauss v. Horton 46 Cal.4th 364, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 207 P.3d 48, was the consolidation of three lawsuits following the passage of California's Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which went into effect on November 5. The suits were filed by a number of gay couples and governmental entities. Three of these six were accepted by the Supreme Court of California to be heard together. The oral arguments were made in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. These cases were new to the California Supreme Court, and Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that it will set precedent as "no previous case had presented the question of whether an initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".
1972 California Proposition 172008 California Proposition 82008 in LGBT rights2009 in LGBT rightsCampaign for California FamiliesCarlos R. MorenoDavid BoiesDomestic partnership in CaliforniaHollingsworth v. PerryIn re Marriage CasesLGBT history in CaliforniaLGBT rights in CaliforniaLawsuits to overturn Proposition 8Lawsuits to overturn prop 8Marvin R. BaxterNational Center for Lesbian RightsSame-sex marriage in CaliforniaSame-sex marriage in the United StatesSame-sex marriage legislation in the United StatesSan Francisco v. HortonSanta_Clara_County,_CaliforniaTimeline of same-sex marriage in the United StatesTyler v. CaliforniaWhite Night riots
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
Strauss v. Horton
Strauss v. Horton 46 Cal.4th 364, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 207 P.3d 48, was the consolidation of three lawsuits following the passage of California's Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which went into effect on November 5. The suits were filed by a number of gay couples and governmental entities. Three of these six were accepted by the Supreme Court of California to be heard together. The oral arguments were made in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. These cases were new to the California Supreme Court, and Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that it will set precedent as "no previous case had presented the question of whether an initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".
has abstract
Strauss v. Horton 46 Cal.4th 3 ...... ted by Hollingsworth v. Perry.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
20,832,986
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,022,906,962
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
align
right
@en
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
AssociateJudges
ChiefJudge
citations
Concurrence
Kennard
@en
Werdegar
@en
Concurrence/Dissent
Moreno
@en
DecideDate
DecideYear
fullname
Karen L. Strauss et al., Petit ...... ingsworth et al., Interveners.
@en
Holding
The Amendment to the State Con ...... al in the State of California.
@en
JoinMajority
Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Corrigan
@en
Litigants
Strauss v. Horton
@en
majority
George
@en
quote
The Article 1 provision guaran ...... e face of the 52 percent vote.
@en
source
-- Attorney General Jerry Brown
@en
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Strauss v. Horton 46 Cal.4th 3 ...... take away fundamental rights".
@en
label
Strauss v. Horton
@en