The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a major legal victory for marriage equality this afternoon.
Getty Images
Prop 8 opponents cheer the ruling outside the 9th Circuit.
A federal appeals court has declared California's voter-approved Proposition 8 unconstitutional, NBC News is reporting.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
The ban passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008 and outlawed same-sex unions just five months after they became legal in the state. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for two couples who sued to overturn the ban have said they would appeal to the Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling.
The 9th Circuit's website has crashed -- there's apparently quite a bit of interest in the ruling -- but here's a Scribd copy of the ruling; here's one on DocumentCloud; and the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles posted a pdf version.
We'll update this post with additional details soon, but in the meantime, read along with us in the comments section.
Update: From Judge Stephen Reinhardt's ruling: "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."
Second Update: Pending further appeals, a stay is in place in California, so the ruling does not allow same-sex marriages to resume in the state.
Third Update: The New York Times' Adam Nagourney believes today's ruling "all but ensur[es] that the case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court." Indeed, the 9th Circuit's majority seemed to be operating with that assumption in mind, making several references to Romer v. Evans.
Leave a Comment:
The opinion of the 9th is very good and well reasoned, but the next move belongs to Tony "Crispycrust" Scalia.
Yes!
I celebrate this decision as progress. We still face a potential en banc ruling from Ninth Circuit. Further, we still don't know which case, if any, the SCOTUS will certify.
In the meantime, break out the champagne :>)
This may be off-topic, but can someone please explain how do "we" put up the "rights of other people" to a vote?!?! I mean doesn't "the Constitution" that the reich keeps screeching about say that "...all men are endowed with inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - then how in the he-- can we "regulate the rights of others"?!?!
That's just bullpuckey!! Go 9th Circuit!!!
Life liberty and pursuit of happiness are from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. It's not a detail.
I have been reading a lot of posts online bemoaning this decision with comments such as:
"Why do we even have elections anymore considering that when the people vote on something like the people did in California not once, But twice and then have it overturned both times?...A sad day for both liberty and America."
How these people don't realize that imposing their will on someone else because of who they are is NOT liberty but oppression is beyond me. Those who supported and continue to support Prop 8 can't see that what they are supporting is institutionalized discrimination. Maybe if we changed it from saying gay marriage to equal employment rights for blacks or women they might understand how Prop 8 is anti-liberty. On the other hand, people like that appear to never be able to understand such analogies. It is unfortunate that a large portion of the black community supported prop 8 because they were blinded by their allegiance to their churches and therefore unable to see that this fight is exactly like what blacks experienced during the civil rights battles of the 60s.
I guess I don't understand how Walker's ruling was appealed in the first place? Doesn't the appealing side have to show that there's some sort of harm? And since they failed miserably to show how allowing same-sex marriage demonstrates a harm to anyone, it seems odd that their appeal had any standing. How can they possibly have standing to appeal to the 9th circuit..or SCOTUS for that matter?
Their appeal was on the grounds that Walker could not make the ruling because he was gay and in a long term relationship. Those defending Prop 8 argued that Walker was not impartial and therefore his ruling was suspect. The 9th Circuit court ruling concluded that Walker's ruling was valid and that his sexual orientation and relationship status did not effect the merits of his ruling.
That wasn't the basis for their original appeal though. Walker's orientation, which was actually known by everyone involved before the ruling anyway, was part of the story during the process. I still don't see how they had standing in the first place.
Well apologies then. I was going off the Christian Science Monitor article I read. It says that the appeal was a challenge to the ethicality of Walker's rule. Meaning that Walker's ruling was considered biased and therefore wasn't fair. You can appeal on those grounds and that's what CSM says the appeal was based on.
The Walker decision would be opposed on as many grounds as possible. Re:bias of gay judge,Wouldn't the same argument apply to judges who are fixated on the opposite sex and possibly in some relationship with one?
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but if the state decided not to intervene in the decision using an appeal, and you can't provide sufficient evidence to show that you have "a dog in the race" then you shouldn't be able to appeal.
Whether or not that was the basis of the appeal, it certainly was a thing that has been often claimed on the right. And it's a funny thing. The unspoken part of it is that a straight judge would not have been biased. But part of the right's rabid, even frothing campaign against equality has always been based on the assertions that same-sex marriage will ruin marriage for straights and will destroy civilization. And straight judges aren't supposed to have any skin in that game?
And to riff a little on what Zora asked up at 3.1, I'd like to ask not only how we can vote on people's supposedly inalienable rights, but also what compelling reason there might be for such a thing. Another part of the right's fight against equality is the assertion that it would redefine marriage and we can't possible allow that. First, why should equality be thought to redefine marriage at all? What actually will have changed? It's not as if there have been massive changes over the course of the last century (the gradual elimination of coverture, for one thing). Even if equality does involve redefining marriage, why is that a bad thing? And even if someone really that such a redefinition is undesirable, could it really be so awful as to justify denying people their constitutionally-protected civil rights and personal liberties? Opponents need to give satisfactory answers to those sorts of questions before we should ever even consider holding votes on rights.
But we never will get satisfactory answers, because the phrase "redefinition of marriage" and all their other arguments are only about making people afraid. We're not supposed to wonder why we should be afraid. Just be afraid! is all we'll ever get.
I'm willing to give them that it "redefines marriage." But marriage has been redefined so many times I'm not willing to give them that this is somehow new or egregious. Marriage is no longer about exchanging property. Marriage is no longer about pro-creation and ownership. Marriage is no longer about the King and his taxes. Marriage is no longer about the distribution of land and lordship. Marriage is no longer about linage. There are only a handful of reasons why you pass any policy (whether social or economic) and in the case of social policy you only pass laws if you a. want to encourage/increase behavior, b. discourage/decrease behavior, or c. punish/rehabilitate behavior. Will passing a ban on gay marriage stop gays from existing? No. Will it stop gays from cohabitating? No. From raising children? No. From living their lives together and sharing property as is the current existence of marriage? No. From having sex together? No. Will the allowance of gay marriage increase any of these elements? No. So both contentions "a" and "b" are immediately thrown out. That only leaves us w/ contention "c" which is to punish/rehabilitate the behavior. You cannot rehabilitate someone from being gay, so that only leaves us w/ the one option: punishment. The purpose of preventing gays from getting married is singularly and intentionally done to create a second-class citizenry in the attempt to punish that citizenry for the crime of being gay.
It always comes back to Calvinism. Always. That is what the right-wing has developed in to.
I am very glad.
Ditto.
If you (TRMS bloggers) post a picture and make it accessible as a thumbnail for Facebook sharing, this would be a great opportunity to expand TRMS Blog readership! :)
Why does it take so long for common sense in this country to prevail? why?
Integrity. What a concept!
pg. 5
Pretty strong evidence on why we need to reelct President Obama. We need to make sure that the Supreme Court is not stacked with religios right wing zealots.
What would Mr 1% do when it came time to replace one of the aging justices?
Thank God some reason and fairness is surfacing in this country..........giving us more strength as we move to the Supreme Court.........we will prevail!!
Because common sense isn't part of the programed belief system.
Logic facts and reason,are somehow blasphemous.
copy-and-paste from Scribd doesn't work at all, so rather than type up a half-page footnote here, let me direct you to the awesome footnote on the bottom of p. 18 of the ruling. (an excellent summary of the rulings in Perry v. Schwartzenegger 2010)
This will only be real progress when people like us can get equal treatment as citizens of this country, no matter where we live. The Prop 8 ruling for now (articles suggest) will apply only to California. And, as it stands, even though they can't rely on Prop 8 to dictate affairs in that state (or any other), they still do not have a legislative leg on which to stand that will require same-sex couples be treated equally-- whether it's marriage, hospital visitation, tax codes, or equality of benefits (including VA, Social Security, or other spousal entitlements) there are a host of ways that inequity of policies has a significant (and damaging) effect on committed couples nationwide.
Howwweevvverrr.... it does set the precedent for states like WA and NY (and maybe NJ) that are passing these things without court involvement that the far right can't turn around and petition it off the books. Every brick in the wall is *still* another brick in the wall.
So it's not over yet?
Shoot. I thought this would be the Best Valentine's Day Ever!
Think of this as the first installment. I can pretty well guarantee at least two more chances, so maybe we'll also have Valentine's Day presents in 2013 and 2014.
Hey, we can hope.
This ruling has "going to go in the textbooks" all over it. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been reading a lot of judicial rulings over the past few years and although almost all of them are carefully written, some have that additional literary polish.
Judge Walker's was like that, and this is another.
Yes another Win for the Good Guys- Just think if New Gingrich were President he would arrest the Justices of the 9th District and toss them in prison for not rubber stamping what the people voted for.
Screw the voters!
Civil rights should never be subject to a popular vote. The Constitution was wisely designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I agree, as Voters shouldn't have the right to vote on RIGHTS !
No one is screwing the voter ... that's a nonsense charge that reflects no understanding of the law or of civics generally. By your lights, 51% of the voters could vote to kill the other 49%, but that is clearly wrong.
Don't blame all the voters. I was one who was dead set against Prop 8. What should have been stopped was out-of-state money coming in to support the prop. If it was only left to Californians without that influence, I can almost guarantee that Prop 8 would have been defeated.
I'm just glad my friends were able to marry before the election and that all marriages conducted before the election are still valid. Now my worry is with a heavily Right Wing Supreme Court if civil rights for all Americans still mean something to them.
Exactly! I had church goers at my door wanting me to vote yes (to uphold the ban). I wish I had thought to remind them that if they want to bed with politics they should be paying taxes!
This was not a ruling just for gay rights but did address the broader issues of whether the voters had the right to vote for/against other peoples rights and whether a constitutional amendment could be crafted to restrict rights.
Prop 8 got passed because of the huge turnout of the urban black vote for Obama, many who were first time voters. The black baptist church goers are not supportive of gays. I found it amusing after the passage of Prop 8, there were demonstrations in West Hollywood which disrupted the traffic and inconvenienced residents of the very neighborhood of voters who voted against Prop 8. The demonstrations should have been in Compton, Watts and South Central LA. Disrupt the traffic in the hoods who voted for Prop 8.
Exactly Jack. I understand the argument that civil rights should not be put to a popular vote. However it was. Twice, first with Prop. 22 in 2000 and Prop 8 in 2008. And twice the CA Supreme court and the most liberal federal appeals court overturned not one, but two voter initiatives on same sex marriages. Its a slippery slope when the defeated minority use over-reaching courts to overturn ballot measures which they disagree with. The real argument should have been should CA voter initiatives continue to be in existence. That is a much more valid argument which I would support. I believe that voter ballot initiatives have gotten out of control here in CA, particularly for bond measures and higher taxes.
I'm Very Happy for California - meanwhile back in Missouri ... nothing ! So many states, so much to do, however this is indeed a step forward !
(page 37)
Bonus points for the Shakespeare reference!
Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene 2
See page 47 - this decision is extremely narrowly drawn and applies only to situations when a right is extended then removed from a discrete group of people. That removal must have a rational basis. The 9th Circuit held that prop 8 failed that test.
The Court is excruciatingly careful to note that it makes no statement or holding relating to the fundamental rights of same sex couples to marry the person of their choosing or whether a state's continuing denial of marriage equality to their gay/lesbian citizens violates the 14th amendment. Romer v Evans is the guiding light here, not Loving v Virginia.
Baby steps my friend, baby steps.
Nice, but it would be even nicer if Maryland and Washington would hurry up and pass marriage equality legislation.
You can view the decision here: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/02/breaking-9th-circuit-upholds-ruling-striking-down-proposition-8.html
Marriage equality!
Pfft! Now all teh gays will be out gay dancing in gay San Francisco celebrating gay marriage!
PS- please tell me this ruling means we can stop saying "gay" as a qualifier before the noun.
I've been saying marriage equality. You can, too! Ask me how!
Yeah, OK, that was just silly.
so, that line of reasoning continues with an excellent bout of discourse analysis & literary reference FTW:
(pp 37-38)
I wish copy-and-paste worked with Scribd, because I do want to type out all of page 38... anyway, y'all go read it, because we get references to Groucho Marx, Shakespeare, Frank Sinatra, and Marilyn Monroe to prove that....
(p 39)
As a college English teacher, I think this wins the prize for best court decision ever. Discourse Analysis FTW!
GOP furious.
Only the crazy ones.
Start the GOP righteous indignation (and blaming gays for everything from "the destruction of the family" to whatever other social/economic/political catastrophe you choose)... in 3... 2...1...
The obvious retort to that would be to say, "Is there any other kind?" But that wouldn't be nice, would it?
I have a serious issue with civil rights being put up to a popular vote. Californians were wrong on Prop 8 and the 9th Circuit did the right thing. They usually do. Now let's see what SCOTUS does. As long as Scalia & Co control the court, I'm not very optimistic.
As a native Californian I can tell you those of us who were very much against this proposition worked hard to defeat it. The biggest problem was that outside groups, ie. Utah anti-gay groups, came into our state and plastered the state with a lot of false scenerios about what would happen if Prop. 8 passed. They spent so much money it was incredible. So much for allowing Californians to decide what they wanted in their own state.
I agree. Especially now that the Heritage Foundation is demanding that the Civil Rights division of the DOJ be "investigated for bias"--why? Because they "believe in Human Rights."
And the Tea Partiers in I think South Carolina are demanding that all references to equal rights be removed from school textbooks.