9th Cir. Affirms District Court in Prop 8 Case – Narrowly


Posted on February 7th, 2012 by Katherine Franke
 7 comments  

The 9th Circuit just issued its decision in the Prop 8 case, upholding by a vote of 2-1 the lower court’s finding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.  They did so, importantly, on very narrow grounds – resting the holding on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the passage of Proposition 8.  They made clear that their decision did not address the general constitutionality of same-sex couples’ right to marry under the constitution, but rather focused on California’s withdrawal of marriage rights to a group that had already been allowed to marry.  In the end the Court of Appeals found that Prop 8 was not justified by the “legitimate” reasons offered by its defenders: advancing California’s interest in childrearing or responsible reproduction (sic), religious freedom, or the rights of parents to control their children’s education.

The Court found 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.  The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”

Not bad language, really. Let’s hope the narrowness of the decision keeps the Supreme Court from taking it up and creating a dangerous mess.  But then we’ve first got to convince Olson and Boies that this is not the time to have the Supreme Court address the larger question of the Constitutionality of barring same-sex couples from marrying.

The full opinion is here.  The decision is 133 pages long and these observations are from a quick, initial reading.  More analysis to come.

 

7 comments

  1. 9th Cir. Affirms District Court in Prop 8 Case – Narrowly http://t.co/l4WbQCV6

  2. 9th Cir. Affirms District Court in Prop 8 Case – Narrowly http://t.co/l4WbQCV6

  3. US: 9th Cir. Affirms District Court in Prop 8 Case – Narrowly http://t.co/ipWwQATj

  4. 9th Cir. Affirms District Court in Prop 8 Case – Narrowly http://t.co/l4WbQCV6

  5. [...] yesterday confirming the lower court finding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.  As I noted yesterday and Nan Hunter pointed out as well in her reading of the opinion, the reasoning used by the court [...]

  6. [...] yesterday confirming the lower court finding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. As I noted yesterday and Nan Hunter pointed out as well in her reading of the opinion, the reasoning used by the court [...]

  7. 9th Cir. Affirms District Court in Prop 8 Case – Narrowly http://t.co/wtwF6COb

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Adoption adultery Alien Tort Claims Act Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Islamophobia Israel Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.