Opinion
Page 589d
144 Cal.App.4th 589d __Cal.Rptr.3d__ In re MARRIAGE CASES [Six consolidated appeals. ] A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, A110651, A110652 California Court of Appeal, First District, Third Division November 6, 2006JCCP No. 4365.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINIONS AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
The majority opinion filed herein on October 5, 2006 (143 Cal.App.4th 873; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___) is modified as follows:
1. In the last sentence in the text on page 44 [143 Cal.App.4th 923, advance report, 1st par., line 1], replace the clause after the word “and” with the following: “no clear factual record was developed addressing the three suspect classification factors.”
2. In the first sentence on page 45 [143 Cal.App.4th 923, advance report, 1st par., line 3], replace the word “evidence” with the words “lower court findings.”
The concurring and dissenting opinion of Kline, J.,[*] filed herein on October 5, 2006, is modified as follows:
1. At the end of the last sentence of the paragraph commencing at the bottom of page 34 and ending at the top of page 35 (first full paragraph of part II) [143 Cal.App.4th 971, advance report, 1st full par., line 10], add as footnote 13 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes in the concurring and dissenting opinion:
[13] The majority’s statement that “no clear factual record was developed [in the trial court] addressing the three suspect classification factors” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 923) is inaccurate. Although the trial court did not hold an
Page 589e
evidentiary hearing and found it unnecessary to determine the issue, the City proffered declarations addressing each of the three factors. With respect to immutability—the only one of the factors the majority questions—these declarations state that homosexuality is not a mental illness, that attempts to change an individual’s sexuality have not been demonstrated empirically to be effective or safe, and that such interventions can be harmful psychologically. The state presented no evidence to the contrary, although other parties submitted declarations taking an opposing view.
These modifications do not affect the judgment.
Rehearing petitions filed by respondents City and County of San Francisco, Gregory Clinton and Lancy Woo, and by respondent-interveners Equality California and Del Martin, are denied.