Appeals court upholds ruling overturning marriage initiative as unconstitutional
California voters violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution when they mended the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Feb. 7.
The long-awaited ruling on the 2008 voter initiative Proposition 8 sets the stage for a decisive battle on the issue at the U.S. Supreme Court. Advocates of the voter-enacted definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman said they would appeal to the nation’s highest court, as the state’s Catholic bishops responded with a statement reaffirming the marriage
of a man and a woman as “the most basic building block of the family and society.”
Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, denounced the ruling as “a grave injustice.”
Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, called it “tragic for California, for the nation and especially for children.”
Bill May, president of Catholics for the Common Good and a spokesman for the protectMarriage.com coalition that sponsored Prop. 8 and has defended it in court, said the ruling “was completely expected, and from the most-overturned court in the country.
Prop. 8 was approved by voters in November 2008 after the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City and County of San Francisco following then-Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to begin marrying same-sex couples in 2004.
In its 2-to-1 decision, a three-judge panel ruled that Prop. 8 violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The majority opinion stated that Prop. 8 targeted a minority to take away a right the minority already possessed. The majority ruled that it did not need to decide whether under the U.S. Constitution same sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, because domestic partnerships in the state provided same-sex couples with all the rights of opposite sex couples regardless of marital status.
“Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant definition of ‘marriage’ previously recognized by the California Supreme Court,” according to a court staff summary of the ruling. The initiative left in place the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners while removing the designation of “marriage,” according to the summary.
The majority concluded that the initiative served no purpose “other 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.”
Writing the majority opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said “all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed, to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right – the right to obtain
and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.”
The appellate panel did not address the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in the United States, stating it was only deciding the case in California where it said a pre-existing right had been taken away by Prop. 8.
The panel also affirmed the denial of a move by Prop. 8 proponents to throw out the case because former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled the initiative
unconstitutional after a lengthy trial, purportedly had an interest in being allowed to marry his same-sex partner.
Judge N.R. Smith concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority ruling. He wrote that he was not convinced that Prop. 8’s withdrawal of marriage as a designation available to same-sex couples was not rationally related to further the interests of responsible procreation and optimal parenting.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who brought the city’s appeal in addition to the appeals of two same-sex couples denied marriage licenses by Los Angeles and Alameda counties, said the ruling “strikes a devastating blow” against Prop. 8.
At a press conference with members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee said he would instruct the county clerk to draw up new forms for marriage licenses. Lee called the ruling, “very, very historic,” and said, “It is one I am truly celebrating with the city family.”
Outside the federal courthouse following the hearing, about 100 same-sex marriage supporters rallied and cheered when the ruling was announced, chanting “Let our people wed,” and, “What do we want? Marriage equality! When do we want it? Now!”
“I’m ecstatic,” said Chris Parker, a 33-year-old Oakland resident, who said he had married Matt Small, 37, in Washington, D.C., and was waiting for the state of California to recognize their status.
“This is a huge victory for the people of California,” said John Lewis, a spokesman for Marriage Equality USA, who was with his partner, Stuart Gaffney. Molly McKay, a longtime advocate for
same-sex marriage, called it, “a good day for equality.”
By Valerie Schmalz
San Francisco, February 7, 2012
.
