Gay marriage debate heats up
Aug-09-2010

A federal judge issued a ruling repealing California's Proposition 8 on Wednesday on grounds that it was unconstitutional, setting the stage for future legal battles questioning the initiative's constitutionality.

In the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, federal district judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the proposition violated the 14th Amendment, which grants citizens equal protection under the law.

Proposition 8 was passed by California voters in 2008, banning same-sex marriages in the state.

In his ruling, Walker cited that the plaintiffs had demonstrated "overwhelming evidence" that Proposition 8 violated their rights to due process and equal protection and prohibited the official defendants from enforcing the proposition.

Walker rejected the argument that opposite-sex marriages were superior because of tradition and procreation and ruled that there should not be a test to limit marriage, said Christine Littleton, a UCLA professor of law and women's studies.

Proponents of Proposition 8 had tried to demonstrate how denying same-sex couples the right to marriage did not reflect a difference in treatment.

"Proposition 8 itself basically failed to advance any rational thought in singling out lesbians and gay men and denying them marriage," said Ronni Sanlo, director of the UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Campus Resource Center.

She added that the 14th Amendment forbids the government from denying a minority something the majority is given.

Doug NeJaime, an associate professor of law at Loyola Marymount University, said that the decision used the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, despite its sweeping implication.

According to NeJaime, the defendants, Proposition 8 supporters, said that it was rational for voters to decide on this issue, but Walker said that it essentially came down to singling out same-sex couples.

Defendants appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a move that will place Walker's ruling on hold until the appeals court's ruling.

Whichever side loses the case in the circuit court is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court, which will then result in the final say on the constitutionality of the proposition.

And while Walker's ruling put the re-institution of same-sex marriage on hold while the case is appealed, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday called for same-sex marriages to resume in the state of California immediately.

"Essentially, in America, we respect the right for free people to make policy choices through the democratic system; in this case, defining marriage between a man and a woman," said Sara Tappen, litigation counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, the legal alliance that defended Proposition 8 in court.

In response to Walker's ruling that Proposition 8 had the intent of suggesting opposite-sex marriage was superior, Tappen said she didn't think anyone who voted for Proposition 8 intended to take away rights but instead make a policy choice they felt was good for society.

"What's radical was to allow a handful of activists to deny the core of the democratic system and force the country to accept a system to deprive children of a mother and a father," she said.

She added that Proposition 8 upheld a definition of marriage that had been established before the country was founded.

If the case does get appealed to the Supreme Court, Littleton said that the result will likely be close, with four justices likely to uphold the proposition, four against, and one justice, Anthony Kennedy, as the swing vote.

"None of us has a crystal ball," Sanlo said. "If we're looking at Supreme Court, we don't know (what the result may be)."

But for now, Jason Bernabe, a third-year nursing student and executive director of Won Together, a student group promoting the right of same sex-marriage, said he wasn't too surprised by the current ruling.

"This is a victory for California, but not for America. We still have a lot of work to do," Bernabe said. "The opposition is gaining ground and going to appeal, and we have to be ready. ... We have to remember that we're not completely protected under the law."

Posted by jc at 4:23 AM - Link to this entry  |  Share this entry  |  Print