He notes: “Tuesday’s ruling quoted extensively from a 1996 Kennedy-authored decree in Romer v. Walters argues, “with words that seemed to be aimed at an audience of one – U.S. Instead, they strike it down on much more narrow and legalistic grounds, Mr. Wrote the court, “We … need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.”
“Instead, Reinhardt – showing uncharacteristic constraint – sidestepped the larger constitutional rights issue cited in the trial court ruling.” “Had it done so, it likely would have invited another Supreme Court reversal,” Mr. Legal scholars argued that the narrow grounds of the ruling, which focused almost exclusively on California law and ignored the broader federal questions, may make it more difficult for the Supreme Court to rule on this matter.Ĭourtney Joslin, a UC Davis professor of law who co-authored an amicus brief, filed on behalf of 28 California family law professors in the litigation challenging Proposition 8, said on Tuesday, “One possible reaction to this opinion is that it is limited to the unique California history and because of that the court might feel that there’s less of a need to grant review.”Ĭolumnist Dan Walters writes, “With liberal icon Stephen Reinhardt as its lead author, one might expect a three-judge appellate panel not only to strike down Proposition 8, California’s 2008 anti-gay marriage measure, but to declare a fundamental constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry.” The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’ “Īnd with that, the landmark ruling makes the California’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, but stays the order, allowing the ban to remain in place while the proponents of Proposition 8 prepare to appeal. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the 2-1 majority, therefore argues that “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. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State… the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. The court went on to argue that under California’s statutory law, “Same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couple” regardless of their marital status, and thus, “Proposition 8 had one effect only. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.” The court continues, “Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution. “On that day,” the court continued, “the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. “Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couple alike,” the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals began in what will be a landmark decision, marking the first time a federal circuit court has ruled in favor of equal rights for same sex couples. Legalistic Decision Tosses Prop 8 on Narrow California-Based Grounds