Most Read Articles>> GA Voice names new editor
>> Charles Busch brings one-night only presentation to Actor’s Express
>> New Midtown eateries reflect the evolving tastes of gay Atlanta?
>> Affordable Care Act still a maze for HIV-positive people in Ga.
>> [Video] Cathy Woolard shares her 'Crossroads' moment about coming out, becoming an LGBT activist
|[Breaking] California's Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional|
|Written by Laura Douglas-Brown|
|Tuesday, 07 February 2012 13:01|
Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that ended same-sex marriage in California, is unconstitutional, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.
"We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," the ruling states. "We conclude that it does."
The ruling goes on to note that, contrary to the arguments of Proposition 8 defenders, the measure "could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples."
Noted the court, "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."
The Queer Justice League is urging LGBT Atlantans and their allies to gather today at 4:30 p.m. at the corner of 10th Street and Piedmont Avenue, the former location of Outwrite Bookstore, to react to the decision. Participants are encouraged to bring signs.
The ruling, from a three-judge panel of the appeals court, could be appealed to either an 11-judge panel of the appeals court or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could decide to hear the case or let the lower court ruling stand.
The court notes in today's ruling that a stay on further same-sex weddings in California remains in effect.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, which filed a court brief against Prop. 8, noted that the case is likely far from over.
"The supporters of Prop 8 have 15 days to ask the Ninth Circuit panel to reconsider its decision or to ask for reconsideration by a larger panel of judges on that court," NCLR said. "Alternatively, they have 90 days to request that the Supreme Court of the United States review the case."
Long battle for marriage equality in Calif.
The California Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that banning same-sex couples from marriage violated the state constitution. More than 18,000 gay couples were married in California before voters repealed same-sex marriage rights in November 2008.
The California Supreme Court upheld the amendment, but the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, led by high-profile attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies. The controversial case, filed as Perry vs. Schwarzenegger and now known as Perry vs. Brown, is widely expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The gay marriage advocates won the first round, when U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled in August 2010 that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
“Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment,” Walker ruled, noting that it “perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.”
Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to challenge Walker's ruling, but backers of the ballot initiative — called Protect Marriage — appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Brown is now governor of California.
A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court — made up of Judges Stephen Reinhardt (appointed by President Carter), Randy Smith (appointed by President George W. Bush) and Michael Hawkins (appointed by President Clinton) — heard arguments in the case on Dec. 6, 2010.
The federal panel then asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on whether the ballot measure backers had standing to defend Proposition 8.
The California high court ruled unanimously in November 2011 that the backers could defend the case. In today's ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed that the sponsors of Proposition 8 were entitled to defend it.
"We therefore conclude that, through the proponents of ballot measures, the People of California must be allowed to defend in federal courts, including on appeal, the validity of their use of the initiative power," stated the decision, written by Judge Reinhardt. "Here, however, their defense fails on the merits."
Backers of Proposition 8 also asked that Walker's ruling be thrown out because Walker came out as gay and in a longterm relationship after he retired.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Ware ruled against the claim, noting that gay judges are "entitled to all the presumptions about impartiality and fairness as other judges," but the Prop 8 backers appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as well.
In today's decision, the appeals court agreed that Walker's ruling should stand. The panel also directly addressed the claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow harms the institution of marriage for heterosexuals.
"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," the court wrote.
'The tide is not turning; it has turned'
The ruling drew quick praise from LGBT rights advocates.
"There are days in our nation’s history when genuine progress toward our goal of forming a more perfect union is realized. Days when America's founding promise, that all men and women are created equal, is once again fulfilled," noted the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the case, in a press release. "Today is one of those days."
NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell called the ruling a "giant step."
"It is a unique and honored position to be an eyewitness to history. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling finding that Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of this nation marks the first time a federal appellate court has held that a law excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry runs counter to our highest ideals of equality and fairness. With today's ruling we are a giant step closer to the day when the promise of our Constitution squares with the lived reality of LGBT people."
Lambda Legal, which joined NCLR and other pro-gay groups in the friend-of-the-court brief in favor of same-sex marriage rights, called the ruling a "momentous victory."
"This ruling foreshadows the ultimate fate of other states in the Ninth Circuit like Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Hawaii that refuse to recognize the equal dignity of same-sex couples and their families by shunting them off into second-class statuses like domestic partnerships or civil unions,' noted Jon Davidson, the group's legal director.
"The tide is not turning; it has turned; and we are glad to see the Ninth Circuit join the right side of history," he said.
'The whole ball game'
The anti-gay National Organization for Marriage sent out an "urgent" fundraising appeal shortly after the ruling, asking gay marriage opponents to help raise $100,000 in a week to help take the case to the Supreme Court.
"This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court," NOM Education Fund Executive Director Brian Brown said in the fundraising appeal, asking for money to help stop "same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop."
"This is it. This is the whole ball game," Brown stated. "If we lose here, the laws in 44 states defending marriage will crumble and we CANNOT let that happen!"
A copy of the Ninth Circuit ruling was posted online shortly after the official decision was released:
More information as it becomes available.
Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com