Ninth Circuit Court's Decision on Proposition 8

Tuesday's decision of the three judge panel for the Ninth Circuit court (which covers the western states of the United States) declaring California Proposition 8 as unconstitutional still leaves many murky issues about the constitutionality of same sex marriage. The 89 page decision endorsed by two of the judges (Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Hawkins) was, constitutionally, fairly narrowly construed. It did not rule on whether, as such, there is any constitutional right to same sex marriage. Nor did it judge whether laws in other states, besides California, which outlaw same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

The ruling drew on two realities rather specific to California and not likely to be found in other states. The Court based its decision fairly closely on a 1996 Supreme Court decision (6-3), Romer vs. Evans, which outlawed a Colorado referendum which rescinded anti-discrimination rights for gays (in housing and employment) which had been already granted by several municipalities in Colorado. That Supreme Court decision made a crucial distinction between an initial "withholding" of rights (perhaps, even those which were not, as such, mandated under the Federal Constitution's equal protection clause, the Fourteenth Amendment) and, secondly, an actual "rescinding" of rights already granted. The latter needs a stronger sense of a compelling governmental interest to be legal and constitutional. A bill that targeted a minority group, as such, to remove already granted rights from them, Romer argued, violated the Fourteenth Amendment, if they targeted that minority group alone, without any other compelling governmental imperatives.


Prior to the passage of California's Proposition 8 (which was a constitutional amendment and not a mere referendum, establishing law and which stated that "marriage was between a man and a woman"), California's Supreme Court invalidated an earlier referendum (which was a mere law and not a constitutional amendment) outlawing same sex marriage. For 143 days, same sex marriage was legal in California and 18,000 same same sex marriages were legally recognized. So, for that period of time, a right to marry and to have their union called a marriage was granted to same sex couples. Proposition 8, then, amended California's constitution to make explicit that same sex couples could not be said to be "married." According to the Ninth Circuit Court's reasoning, an anomoly is that, had Proposition 8 been passed before the California Supreme Court decision, it would have been valid law or, at least, not subject to tests flowing from the Romer decision. Proposition 8 did not in any way rescind the previous California statutes allowing same sex domestic partnerships or civil unions. These carried all of the ordinary rights and privileges of a marriage except the name.

The Court argued that the only purpose of Proposition 8 was to withdraw the term "marriage" from same sex couples. It saw this as an attempt to lesson the status and human dignity of a minority (gays and lesbians) and to show that their relationships were inferior. In point of fact, Proposition 8 had no effect, in state law, on procreation or the raising of children by same sex couples, no impact on religious freedom or parental control over their children's education. These had been adduced as compelling state interests by proponents of Proposition 8 who wanted the court to uphold its constitutionality.

The narrow constitutional grounds of the court's decision (distinguishing between "withdrawing" a right from a minority versus the mere "withholding" of a right and also relying on the fact that, in California, same sex couples in civil unions already enjoy all of the rights of marriage granted to opposite sex marriages except the name, makes it very unlikely that this California precedent will have any further impact on other states' laws. The majority ruled that, in the California case, there was no legitimate state interest to withdraw the term "marriage" from same sex couples as Proposition 8 did. The majority opinion noted that there is a big difference, symbolically, between "marriage"  and "domestic partnership," even opining that no one would have wanted to see the Marilyn Monroe film, "How to Marry a Millionaire" if it had been entitled, "How to Get a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire"! Both proponents and opponents of Proposition 8 had argued that the term, marriage, carried a strong symbolic weight. The court decided that there was no compelling reason, except to downgrade the status and dignity of same sex couples, to deny the term to same sex couples.

The dissenting judge, N. Randy Smith, in his 39 page dissent, contested the majority's reliance on Romer vs. Evans. He argued that the range of rights denied in that case was much broader than that found in Proposition 8. He also felt that, in any case of doubt about a possible compelling state interest, the Federal Courts should exercise more judicial restraint on overturning state laws. His final argument may not be as strong in the California case. He claimed that "the family structure of two committed biological parents--one man and one woman--is the optimal partnership for raising children." Even if that can be shown empirically, usually or always (it is, perhaps, difficult to do so), it has little bearing on the California case. The majority took up that objection and said it was in no way adjudicating on the factuality of it, since, in point of fact, California law already fully recognized the parental rights of same sex couples. There was no compelling evidence that allowing same sex couples to marry would have any noticeable impact on the fidelity, parenting or, in any other way, on "the harmonious, loyal, enduring and intimate relationship" of opposite sex marriages.

Those unhappy with the decision can appeal for an en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit Court (which would entail a majority of active judges in the circuit to vote to rehear the case). It seems unlikely that will happen. The second recourse is to the Supreme Court which would entail four judges voting to hear the case. The reasoning of the Ninth Circuit seemed closely tailored to appeal to Judge Anthony Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in Romer. In the interim, the Court has put a stay on acting on its opinion until the opponents of it have time to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court.

An anomoly is that it is not at all clear that, should this ruling stand, it would mean that California would have to recognize same sex marriaages from out of state since California's present law merely "withholds" that privilege and has never granted, then rescinded, it.

John A. Coleman, S.J.


Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
david power
6 years 10 months ago
Here we go.
My best prediction is that this posting beats the 40 comments bar.
"Protect yourself at all times, make this a clean fight, dont hit lower than the belt line, "Okay, touch gloves and come out at the bell"!

Dong Dong. 
Joshua DeCuir
6 years 10 months ago
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Reinhardt is THE most-frequently overturn judge on THE single most frequnetly overturned federal circuit.  In fact, I think he may be the most frequently overturned federal appeals judge in the nation.  If the opponents of Prop 8 really believed in the soundness of the ruling, they should join in asking for an en banc hearing.  Again, the 9th Circuit ain't exactly the 5th Circuit!
Michael Barberi
6 years 10 months ago
No doubt, a state trend has been building over same sex marriages and this California decision is a recent example. The issue will only be settled by the Supreme Court as a secular issue. The issue for Catholics is a complex one and only time will tell if sexual ethical teachings will be reformed. Same sex marriages may never be permitted by the Catholic Church. What may be possible, and to many probable, is a change in how Humanae Vitae is applied and interpreted in the future. If this happens, many sexual ethical teachings will likely change. There are too many complex cases involving the moral absolute of contraception where human suffering and moral dilemma is an unreasonable burden and in tension with the heirarchy of values and the human experience of marriage and procreation.
david power
6 years 10 months ago

That Change has already taken place in the mind of Pope Benedict.
In his latest book/Interview with Seewald he does something or says something very interesting on contraception that nobody seemed to notice.He reduced the entire thing to a spiritual practise.
A very noble and holy practise but just that.
He said that the majority will not practise it but that it will be a means of sanctification for those that do sort of like a Eucharistic hour.I was shocked that nobody read that in the book.
I think that the Pope prides himself on being an essentialist in the faith and so there is no litmus test in this sense.  
As for same-sex marriage it is clearly another matter.Cardinal Schoenborn said that when discussing the issue we have to look at the "quality" of the relationships.Again a very interesting comment that never really got picked up on. 


The latest from america

The act of planting a garden is the easier part: It’s the small daily acts of caring over the long haul that can be a challenge.
Elizabeth Kirkland CahillDecember 15, 2018
So what is it about these cheesy, mass-produced films that make them so irresistible?
Colleen DulleDecember 14, 2018
Last year, 'America' published “An (unconventional) Advent Playlist.” This is my (much more conventional) Advent playlist.
Molly MattinglyDecember 14, 2018
Jeff Daniels in ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ (photo: Julieta Cervantes)
Two starry new Broadway productions have no qualms about speaking their mind.
Rob Weinert-KendtDecember 14, 2018