A judge for the San Francisco Superior Court recently learned that a party to a 2004 marriage involving two women that has since been classified as null and void constitutes a “putative” spouse. The court in the case, Hernandez v. King, held that because Cynthia Hernandez had a “good faith subjective belief” that her marriage was valid between 2004 to 2020, she qualifies as a putative spouse.
The Role of Putative Spouses in California
To qualify as a putative spouse under state law, one of the individuals in a couple must have held a good faith belief that the marriage was valid. This belief, however, need not be reasonable. This doctrine is frequently used in situations associated with common-law marriages or marriages that are not solemnized when one of the spouses passes away. The putative spouse doctrine exists to protect both the financial and property interests of an individual who enters into a bigamous marriage under the good faith belief that it is a valid marriage.
Previous California Law Addressing Same-Sex Couples
In its 2004 decision of Lockyear v. San Francisco, the California Supreme Court ruled that the city lacked the authority to issue marriage licenses to individuals of the same sex and commanded that the city notify all individuals who had receive marriage licenses that their marriages were both void from inception and null.
The History Behind the Case
The couple in this case began dating in 2000. Four years later, the Mayor of San Francisco directed city officials to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples because state law restricting marriage to one man and one woman was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
In 2004, the parties were married in a ceremony that was held at San Francisco City Hall. The couple received an official marriage certificate soon after confirming that they were married. The petitioner testified that the County Supervisor at the time pulled the parties out of their place and took them to a ceremonial courtroom so a “special wedding” could be performed. The supervisor warned the couple that California law would waiver on the issue of same-sex marriage but would eventually end up in favor of same-sex marriage which would lead to a period of backlash. Following this special ceremony, the same-sex couple went to a church to strengthen the legitimacy of the marriage.
The couple resided together until 2019. The dispute in this case arose after Hernandez filed for a dissolution of her marriage at the beginning of 2020 with the hopes of obtaining both community property and spousal support. Subsequently, a motion to dismiss was filed because there was no valid marriage.
The Goal of the Universal Life Church’s Blog
The Universal Life Church’s blog focuses on describing the most notable cases involving same-sex marriage and other important topics. Even though these cases are often complex, our blog aims to describe these matters in a way that objectively examines both sides.