In Jackson v. Jackson (1967) 67 Cal.2d 245, in an annulment proceeding where the parties had been married only four days, the majority of the court in a four-to-three decision stated at page 248: " Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603, correctly holds, on the facts of that case, that the presumption of Evidence Code section 621 is not so much a conclusive presumption as it is a rule of substantive law that a husband will be treated as the father of a child born to his wife and conceived while they were cohabiting. It makes no difference whether the husband is the biological father, for the basis of the inquiry is whether he is the legal father of the child; he must be given a chance to prove that he is not the legal father by demonstrating the impossibility that the child was conceived during his cohabitation with his wife. In the instant case plaintiff was denied this opportunity." Although the dissent authored by Justice Burke disagrees with the result reached by the majority it further emphasizes that the conclusive presumption is grounded more on public policy than on rational integrity. Speaking of the majority opinion Justice Burke states: (p. 249): "This ruling jeopardizes the integrity of the marriage state. It pierces the protective shield which the law has heretofore placed around children born to married couples and subjects their status as the legitimate issue of their parents to the vagaries of test tubes and chemistry. Heretofore it has been the public policy of this state, supported by the courts citing Kusior that the greater good to be served is to preserve the legitimacy of children born to married people cohabiting together from attack. However, the effect of today's ruling is to add another exception, based on blood test evidence, to the conclusive presumption of legitimacy set forth in section 621 of the Evidence Code, and this despite the most convincing proof -- recognized and spelled out in Kusior -- that the Legislature considered and rejected such an exception. In Kusior this court declined to accept the argument that blood tests results allegedly showing that the husband could not have fathered the child should be made an exception to the rule, and specifically held . . . that such tests may not be used to controvert the conclusive presumption of paternity created by the Legislature."