The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court found that Prop. 8 serves no purpose other than to lessen the dignity and status of gay and lesbian Californians, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.
Why is the decision so historic and significant?
This is the first time a federal appellate court has declared unconstitutional a law banning same-sex marriage and, in that context, explained why marriage is so important.
- ‘[M]arriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not. The word ‘marriage’ is singular in connoting ‘a harmony in living,’ ‘a bilateral loyalty,’ and ‘a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.’” Page 37.
- “The official, cherished status of ‘marriage’ is distinct from the incidents of marriage, such as those listed in the California Family Code. . . . We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries.” Page 39
- “Before Proposition 8, California guaranteed gays and lesbians both the incidents and the status and dignity of marriage. Proposition 8 left the incidents [of marriage] but took away the status and the dignity.” Page 40
The Court found that there was no legitimate reason to single out gay men and lesbians and strip them, and them alone, of the right to marry.
- “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.” Page 5
- “It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman. . . . [T]he argument that withdrawing the designation of ‘marriage’ from same-sex couples could on its own promote the strength or stability of opposite-sex marital relationships lacks any such footing in reality.” Page 63
- “Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.” Page 77.
The decision will give other states pause before attempting to repeal marriage equality laws.
- The Court found that laws that “single[] out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry . . . amounts to a distinct constitutional violation because the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being targeted for the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason.” Pages 33-34
- “Before Proposition 8, California guaranteed gays and lesbians both the incidents and the status and dignity of marriage. Proposition 8 left the incidents [of marriage] but took away the status and the dignity.” Page 40
- “By withdrawing the availability of the recognized designation of ‘marriage,’ Proposition 8 enacts nothing more or less than a judgment about the worth and dignity of gays and lesbians as a class.” Page 73
The unanimous decision to dismiss Proponents’ motion to vacate the judgment is the first time a federal appellate court has considered, and flatly rejected, a judge’s sexual orientation as a reason for disqualification.
- “[T]he fact that a judge ‘could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding[,] in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section 455(b)(4). Nor could it possibly be ‘reasonable to presume,’ for the purposes of § 455(a), ‘that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceeding.’ To hold otherwise would demonstrate a lack of respect for the integrity of our federal courts.” Page 78
Find Out More
