Cal. Codes » Family Code / DIVISION 3. MARRIAGE / PART 1. VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE
California Codes

Cal. Family Code § 300 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).

(b)For purposes of this part, the document issued by the county clerk is a marriage license until it is registered with the county recorder, at which time the license becomes a marriage certificate.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Lockyer v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459 (Cal. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lockyer v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459 (Cal. 2004). · cites it 8× “As we have seen, however, Family Code section 300 explicitly defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and in view of the language and legislative history of this provision (see, ante, 17 Cal.”
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 3× “Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300 , 301. 21. California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.”
Smelt v. Cnty. of Orange, 374 F. Supp. 2d 861 (C.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs sued the County of Orange and the Orange County Clerk (collectively “County Defendants”) and the State Registrar of Vital Statistics and California Department of Health Services (collectively “State Defendants”).”
Smelt v. Cnty. of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 9× “2 See Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300 , 301, 308.5. 3 See Defense of Marriage Act, Pub.”
Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Fam. Code § 300 (a). Following the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, Pub.”
In Re Marriage Cases, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “The legal issue presented in these appeals is straightforward: Did the trial court err when it concluded Family Code statutes defining civil marriage as the union between a man and a woman are unconstitutional? (Fam.Code, §§ 300, 301, 302, 308.5.) Appellants assert legal error;…”
Knight v. Superior Court, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2894 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “) DISCUSSION I Family Code section 300 defines a valid marriage as follows: “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.”
Jurcoane v. Superior Court, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9581 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “” (Fam. Code, § 300.) Moreover, the Legislature has also defined how marriages can be dissolved: “Marriage is dissolved only by one of the following: [If] (a) The death of one of the parties, [f] (b) A judgment of dissolution of marriage.”
Cantarella v. Cantarella, 191 Cal. App. 4th 916 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Effective January 1, 1994, Family Code section 300 et seq. superseded the Family Law Act without substantive change.”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. State, 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 722 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “(Fam. Code, §§ 300, 301, 308.5.) 1 We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Fund’s motions for permissive intervention because the Fund has identified no direct or immediate effect that a judgment in the consolidated cases may have on it or its…”
Est. of Derrel Depasse v. Harris, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2762 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “Review of Statutes Governing Marriage in California Family Code section 300 4 provides: “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.”
Armijo v. Miles, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2789 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “. .” Family Code section 301, then and now, provides that “[a]n unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.