Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California |
Posted: February 7, 2012 |
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
By ADAM NAGOURNEYPublished: February 7, 2012LOS ANGELES – A federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution, all but ensuring that the case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court. MultimediaRelated
Connect With Us on TwitterFollow@NYTNational for breaking news and headlines. Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesReaders’ Comments"Courts’ social activism, driven by either right (Citizens United) or left (this case) ideology is always bad for democracy."Boris, Los Angeles, CA The three-judge panel issued its ruling Tuesday morning in San Francisco, upholding a decision by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who had been the chief judge of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California but has since retired. The panel found that Proposition 8 – passed by California voters in November 2008 by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent – violated the equal protection rights of two same-sex couples that brought the suit. The proposition placed a specific prohibition in the State Constitution against marriage between two people of the same sex. But the 2-1 decision was much more narrowly framed than the sweeping ruling of Judge Walker, who asserted that barring same-sex couples from marrying was a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution. The two judges in this case stated explicitly they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of couples under California law since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. “Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.” “All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same sex-couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,” the judge wrote, adding: “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California." Supporters of Proposition 8 can now ask for a larger panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to take up the case. But they could also choose instead to appeal the case directly to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a decision by the nation’s highest court on an issue that has roiled legal, political and cultural circles here and across the country. The decision was the latest victory by same-sex marriage proponents here since losing at the polls four years ago and sets the stage for what backers of same-sex marriage said they were seeking: a fight before the Supreme Court. Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry, hailed the decision and noted that it was the latest victory for same-sex marriage advocates in the courts and state legislatures -- most recently, in the State of Washington, which is on the verge of legalizing same-sex marriage. “This monumental appellate decision restores California to the growing list of states and countries that have ended exclusion from marriage and will further accelerate the surging nationwide majority for marriage,” he said. Proponents of Proposition 8 expressed disappointment at the decision, but said they were not surprised given the nature of the Ninth Circuit, which they view as a liberal court, and predicted it would fail before the Supreme Court. “The long road to vindicating the right of more than 7 million California voters to establish public policy in this case continues, and we’re confident that as this case proceeds through the appeals process, today’s decision will not only be overturned but strongly denounced,” said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family. The decision, though, was narrowly cast. The judges specifically avoided drawing any grand constitutional right to marriage, unlike the decision by Mr. Walker. Instead, they decided it on narrow grounds, referring to California law and its handling of the rights of domestic partnerships, in a way that might make it difficult to extend the logic of the ruling to other states.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|