On March 26, our attorneys will defend a landmark victory: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, which happened one year ago today. Now, a year on, it’s impossible to overstate just how important that victory is.

You can go in-depth on the decision and read some of the best quotes here. But for a quick overview of why it mattered so much, here are the main highlights :

• 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.
• The Court found that there was no legitimate reason to single out gay men and lesbians and deny them, and them alone, of the right to marry.
• The decision will give other states pause before attempting to repeal marriage equality laws.
• 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.

“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.  The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort,” Judge Reinhardt wrote.

And that’s what we’ll defend on March 26th.

Watch some additional video highlights from the day of the ruling below:

Here we are at the end of 2012, and after a year of amazing progress we’re closer than ever to full federal marriage equality. Think about where we were a year ago with Prop 8, with DOMA, with marriage laws from state to state. So much has happened since then. So let’s do a quick year-in-review to get you caught up with the progress we made in 2012, and where we’re going to focus in 2013, including which states are the most likely to make headlines in the coming year.

On February 7, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The proponents of Proposition 8 recently asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.  Plaintiffs’ brief filed today responds to Proponents’ request.

“[T]he Ninth Circuit found that eliminating the ability of gay and lesbian couples to have their relationships designated as marriages—and relegating them to separate and unequal domestic partnerships—achieves nothing except the marginalization of gay and lesbian individuals and their relationships, and therefore cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,” Plaintiffs’ attorneys, led by distinguished co-counsel Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, said in today’s brief.  “That holding is fully consistent with this Court’s jurisprudence, which has long held that marginalizing a group of citizens for its own sake violates the Fourteenth Amendment.”

What You Can Do

> Donate to help AFER defend the two decisions that ruled Prop. 8
unconstitutional
> If you are waiting to get married, share your story to AFER

Plaintiffs’ brief underscores the clear unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 and the unjustifiable harm that it imposes:

“Proposition 8 is antithetical to the ‘principles of equality’ on which this ‘Nation … prides itself.’  It creates a permanent ‘underclass’ of hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian Californians, who are denied the right to marry available to all other Californians simply because a majority of voters deems gay and lesbian relationships inferior[.] … With the full authority of the State behind it, Proposition 8 sends a clear and powerful message to gay men and lesbians: Your relationships are not recognized on the same footing or entitled to the same dignity or respect as those of heterosexuals.”

Because the Ninth Circuit’s decision “reflects a correct and straightforward application of settled Supreme Court precedent,” Plaintiffs urge the Supreme Court to deny review and put an end, once and for all, to the discrimination that Proposition 8 continues to inflict on gay and lesbian Californians.

“Two federal courts and a majority of Americans recognize that laws like Proposition 8 are unfair, unlawful, and contrary to basic American values,” said AFER Executive Director Adam Umhoefer.  “It is time, indeed past time, that our Nation live up to its founding promise of liberty and equality for all by ensuring that gay and lesbian couples are afforded the same fundamental freedom to marry guaranteed to every American by our Constitution.”

On July 30, 2012, the proponents of Proposition 8 asked the Supreme Court to review the February 2012 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the historic August 2010 judgment of the Federal District Court that struck down Proposition 8.  The Ninth Circuit held:

“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.  The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”

On June 5, 2012, the full Ninth Circuit denied Proponents’ request for an eleven-judge panel to rehear the case, known as rehearing en banc.

Proponents’ request for Supreme Court review, known as a petition for a writ of certiorari, is only granted upon an affirmative vote of four Justices.  The Court will consider Proponents’ petition for certiorari and Plaintiffs’ response at a private conference in late September or early October.

• Read Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition
• Read Proponent’s Petition for certiorari
• Read the Ninth Circuit’s Order Denying Rehearing En Banc
• Read the Ninth Circuit’s Panel Decision
• Read the Federal District Court’s Decision

By Adam Umhoefer, American Foundation for Equal Rights

Two years is too long to wait for something that is so obvious and inevitable.

Saturday marks the two-year anniversary of the District Court decision that ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional. It’s easy to forget how historic the ruling is—after all, gay and lesbian Californians still can’t get married and have lived in the shadow of a law that was said to be unconstitutional 731 days ago. But, the decision is a major milestone in our quest for marriage equality.

The historic 136-page decision included 80 findings of fact that speak to the importance of marriage in our society and the irreparable harm caused by discriminating against a group of people. The landmark decision was affirmed earlier this year by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nearing the Finish Line

While the road to the end-goal of full federal marriage equality has been too long, we can finally say Prop. 8 is breathing its last breath.The Prop. 8 Proponents have just asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take our case.  The Court will either take our case, issuing a final decision by June 2013, or marriage equality will be restored in California as early as October.

Either way, we know that soon gay and couples will finally have the respect and equal dignity the constitution says they should have. For loving couples like AFER’s plaintiffs, Kris & Sandy and Jeff & Paul, and for everyone who believes every American should have the freedom to marry the person they love, that day cannot come soon enough.

A new interactive map by the Los Angeles Times tracks 10 years of progress and setbacks of marriage equality in the United States. By scrolling through the timeline, you can see how each state has changed over time.

For more than a decade, the battle over same-sex marriage and other rights for gay couples has been hard fought in U.S. courts and legislatures and at the ballot box. Use this map to view milestones in the fight and how state laws have changed since 2000.

If you scroll over to today, however, one state might look odd to you: California. Currently on the map it shows the state in the “gay marriage legal” category.

Technically, this is true. While gay and lesbians couples can’t yet get married in the state, Prop. 8 has been ruled unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the decision does not go into effect until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on the issue, by either deciding to hear the case and ultimately issuing a decision, or by deciding not to take the case.

Confused by the map? The Movement Advancement Project has one which goes into greater detail.

Not pictured: legally married couples are denied over 1,000 federal rights and benefits because of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.”

The proponents of California’s Proposition 8 have asked the United States Supreme Court to review the landmark federal appeals court ruling in Perry v. Brown (now Hollingsworth v. Perry) that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional.  Proposition 8 stripped gay and lesbian Californians of the fundamental freedom to marry.

“The Supreme Court has long held that the freedom to marry is one of the most fundamental rights—if not the most fundamental right—of all Americans,” said Plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel David Boies.  “As we have said from the very beginning of this case, the denial of that fundamental right seriously harms gay and lesbian Americans and the children they are raising.  Today’s petition presents the Justices with the chance to affirm our Constitution’s central promises of liberty, equality, and human dignity.”

• What You Can Do
  > Donate to help AFER defend the two decisions that ruled Prop. 8
      unconstitutional
  > If you are waiting to get married, share your story to AFER

“This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution,” said Plaintiffs’ counsel Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.  “Because two federal courts have already concluded that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, gay and lesbian Californians should not have to wait any longer to marry the person they love.  We therefore will oppose the petition for a writ of certiorari.  However, we recognize that this case presents constitutional issues of national significance, and are ready to defend our victories before the Supreme Court.”

“Two federal courts and a majority of Americans agree: discriminatory laws like Proposition 8 have no place in the United States of America today,” said AFER Executive Director Adam Umhoefer.  “This petition by the anti-marriage forces is the last gasp of a dying argument that cannot overcome our Constitution’s guarantee of liberty and equality for all.”

On February 7, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a landmark ruling that affirmed the historic August 2010 judgment of the Federal District Court that struck down Proposition 8.  The Ninth Circuit held:

“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.  The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”

On June 5, 2012, the full Ninth Circuit denied Proponents’ request for an eleven-judge panel to rehear the case, known as rehearing en banc.

Proponents’ request for Supreme Court review, known as a petition for a writ of certiorari, is only granted upon an affirmative vote of four Justices.

• Read Proponent’s petition for certiorari
• Read the Ninth Circuit’s order denying rehearing en banc
• Read the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision
• Read the Federal District Court’s decision

On June 26, 2003, the United States Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas.  The case involved two men, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were arrested in Lawrence’s home and convicted under Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct” law.  (The story behind the Lawrence case is told in Professor Dale Carpenter’s new book, Flagrant Conduct.)

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the Court:

“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element of a personal bond that is more enduring.  The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

Lawrence is the fourteenth—and most recent—case in which the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.  In Lawrence, the Court recognized that

“persons in a homosexual relationship” enjoy “constitutional protection [for] personal decisions related to marriage,” “just as heterosexual persons do.”

At the heart of Lawrence is an understanding that the Constitution’s central protections of liberty, equality, and human dignity are guaranteed to all Americans.

In light of this truth, it is only logical to ask, “What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’?”  These words belong to Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case.

In AFER’s case against Prop. 8, the Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have each addressed Justice Scalia’s question.  Both have responded with the same answer: There is no justification for denying gay and lesbian Americans right to marry.  As the Ninth Circuit held:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

Three weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit declined to reconsider its landmark decision invalidating Prop. 8, paving the way for the Supreme Court to hear our case.  As we enter the final chapter of our fight against marriage inequality, AFER is mindful that our Constitution’s promise of liberty is one that every generation must realize.  As Justice Kennedy said in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific.  They did not presume to have this insight.  They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.  As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Photo: John Geddes Lawrence, right, and Tyron Garner.  Christobal Perez, Houston Chronicle.

The Prop. 8 Proponents now have at least 90 days (September 4, because of Labor Day) to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear our federal legal challenge for marriage equality. They can also ask the Court for up to two 30-day extensions.

Click to view larger >

1. Couples start getting married again in California; or
2. Our case for marriage equality goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Either way, we are on the path to restoring marriage equality in California. Please support our case for equality with a donation of $5, $25, $100 or more.

Each and every day that Proposition 8 remains on the books, loving gay and lesbian couples like our plaintiffs, Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo, are singled out as “different,” “other,” and “less than,” and their children are forced to endure consequences of state-sanctioned discrimination.  Fortunately, this dark mark on California’s Constitution is about to be erased for good.

We are so close to finally getting rid of Prop. 8 forever. Your tax-deductible donation today will help our case for marriage equality as it enters its final phase.

Over and over, the anti-marriage proponents of Proposition 8 have been turned back in their effort to ensure that gay and lesbian Americans remain second-class citizens. Despite two federal courts ruling conclusively that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, the anti-marriage forces petitioned for an en banc rehearing by a larger, eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. Today, that request was denied.

• Read the Ninth Circuit’s Order Denying En Banc Rehearing >
• Read the Ninth Circuit’s Panel Decision >

Should our case be heard by the United States Supreme Court, I am confident the Justices will stand on the side of fairness and equality.

Sincerely,

Adam Umhoefer Executive Director American Foundation for Equal Rights

P.S. Be sure to like AFER on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for more updates on timing and next steps.

Also, listen to this audio of AFER lead co-counsel Theodore B. Olson and David Boies along with AFER co-founder Chad Griffin discuss the Ninth’s Circuit’s decision not to rehear the Prop.8 case with the media.