That seems to be a major reason why US District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled today that Proposition 8, the initiative approved by voters in November 2008 to outlaw same-sex marriages in California, is unconstitutional. I'm not an attorney and I haven't yet read all of the decision carefully, but that seems to be the underlying theme.
Most people only know about major court rulings from bumper sticker-like headlines and soundbites. The people with the loudest opinions are often people who haven’t read the court decisions. And it’s not always easy to do that. But the internet today makes finding them a cinch. Reading through them is a little harder.
So, I’m going to post some excerpts from the conclusions of law from today's ruling.
[
Other sites have posted the conclusion.] Specifically where the judge goes through the Prop 8 proponents’ arguments for why the State of California had a compelling interest to ban same-sex marriage. In each case he says something like “the evidence shows beyond debate” or “These purported interests fail as a matter of law”.
There's little doubt this case will be appealed to the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Alaska) and then to the US Supreme Court.
[Note: People daily hear terms they recognize, but have no real grasp of what they mean, like, an
acre. I've made links to two terms above -
US District Court and
9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If you can't write down a description of, or orally explain, how they relate to each other and to the State and Federal Constitutions, you probably should stop reading this and go look them up so you understand the whole context of this.]
First, here’s the table of contents of
the ruling:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8.............…………………...1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION..........……………. 3
PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8........…………. 5
PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8.........………...... 6
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY...…10
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS...............…………………….25
PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES...............……………………………....25
PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES...............…………………………....35
FINDINGS OF FACT....................…………………………………..54
THE PARTIES....................……………………………………….....54
WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S
REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO
PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX……………………………....60
WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS
AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX
AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS…………………………………....71
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8
ENACTEDA PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING
A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST................………….85
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW...................………………………….... 109
DUE PROCESS....................………………………………….....109
EQUAL PROTECTION..................... ………………………..…117
CONCLUSION.......................… ………………………………...,. 135
REMEDIES........................... ……………………………………....136
The excerpts (the . . . indicate that the text continues on) are from pages 123 - 131 of the ruling. This comes after the finding of facts and at the end of the conclusions of law, just before the conclusions.
Again, this is the section where the judge analyzes each argument made by the proponents of Prop 8 for why the State of California has a compelling reason to outlaw same-sex marriage:
PURPORTED INTEREST #1: RESERVING MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND EXCLUDING ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP
Proponents first argue that Proposition 8 is rational because it preserves: (1) “the traditional institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman”; (2) “the traditional social and legal purposes, functions, and structure of marriage”; and (3) “the traditional meaning of marriage as it has always been defined in the English language.” Doc #605 at 12-13. These interests relate to maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman for its own sake.
Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The “ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself.
The evidence shows that . . .
PURPORTED INTEREST #2: PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION WHEN IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL CHANGES
Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 is related to state interests in: (1) “[a]cting incrementally and with caution when considering a radical transformation to the fundamental nature of a bedrock social institution”; (2) “[d]ecreasing the probability of weakening the institution of marriage”; (3) “[d]ecreasing the probability of adverse consequences that could result from weakening the institution of marriage”; and (4) “[d]ecreasing the probability of the potential adverse consequences of same-sex
marriage.” Doc #605 at 13-14.
Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change. See FF 55. Instead, the evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state. . .
PURPORTED INTEREST #3: PROMOTING OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTING OVER SAME-SEX PARENTING
Proponents’ largest group of purported state interests relates to opposite-sex parents. Proponents argue Proposition 8: 1) promotes “stability and responsibility in naturally procreative relationships”; (2) promotes “enduring and stable family structures
for the responsible raising and care of children by their biological parents”; (3) increases “the probability that natural procreation will occur within stable, enduring, and supporting
family structures”; (4) promotes “the natural and mutually beneficial bond between parents and their biological children”; (5) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both of his or her biological parents”; (6) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both a father and a mother”; and (7) increases “the probability that each child will have a legally recognized father and mother.” Doc #605 at 13-14.
The evidence supports two points which together show Proposition 8 does not advance any of the identified interests: (1) same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, FF 69-73, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that
opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents, FF 43, 46, 51. . .
PURPORTED INTEREST #4: PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 protects the First Amendment freedom of those who disagree with allowing marriage for couples of the same sex. Proponents argue that Proposition 8: (1) preserves “the prerogative and responsibility of parents to provide for the ethical and moral development and education of their own children”; and (2) accommodates “the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.” Doc #605 at 14.
These purported interests fail as a matter of law. Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children. See In re
Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 451-452. Californians are prevented from distinguishing between same-sex partners and opposite-sex spouses in public accommodations, as California antidiscrimination law requires identical treatment for same-sex unions and opposite-sex marriages. . .
PURPORTED INTEREST #5: TREATING SAME-SEX COUPLES DIFFERENTLY FROM OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES
Proponents argue that Proposition 8 advances a state interest in treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples by: (1) “[u]sing different names for different things”; (2) “[m]aintaining the flexibility to separately address the needs of
different types of relationships”; (3) “[e]nsuring that California marriages are recognized in other jurisdictions”; and (4) “[c]onforming California’s definition of marriage to federal law.” Doc #605 at 14.
Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same. FF 47-50. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.
PURPORTED INTEREST #6: THE CATCHALL INTEREST
Finally, proponents assert that Proposition 8 advances “[a]ny other conceivable legitimate interests identified by the parties, amici, or the court at any stage of the proceedings.” Doc #605 at 15. But proponents, amici and the court, despite ample
opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational basis Proposition 8 could conceivably advance. Proponents, represented by able and energetic counsel, developed a full trial record in support of Proposition 8. The resulting evidence shows
that Proposition 8 simply conflicts with the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by
every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally. . .
Finally, before going on to the conclusion, which you can read here at Henkimaa, the judge seems to make the point that you can't use personal opinions as the basis of legislation that discriminates against a class of people.
A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION
In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.
FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).
Here's how it's listed:
KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,
PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J
ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
official capacity as Governor of
California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in
his official capacity as Attorney
General of California;
MARK B
HORTON, in his official capacity
as Director of the California
Department of Public Health and
State Registrar of Vital
Statistics;
LINETTE SCOTT, in her
official capacity as Deputy
Director of Health Information &
Strategic Planning for the
California Department of Public
Health;
PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his
official capacity as Clerk-
Recorder of the County of
Alameda; and
DEAN C LOGAN, in hi s
official capacity as Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk for the
County of Los Angeles,
Defendants,
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J
KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK-
SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A
JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL, as official proponents
of Proposition 8,
Defendant-Intervenors.
