No subject

[snip]

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the 
constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that 
the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a 
union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken
from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be 
understood as making the designation of marriage available both to 
opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of 
marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no 
constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional 
conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand. [Rex 
notes: 308.5 is Prop 22]

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the 
appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate 
our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local 
officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the 
marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a 
manner consistent with the decision of this court.  Further, as the 
prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is 
remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF