9th Circuit Court Summary on California Marriage Amendment

Here's the summary on the "Proposition 8" case from the most overturned federal appeals court. Let's take a look:

The panel majority held that by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause.

How was a minority group targeted when the law applies to voluntary associations or behavior and applies to all?

Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation of “marriage,” previously recognized by the California Supreme Court, while leaving in place all of its incidents.

The California Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the amendment. Why choose their earlier decision but not their more recent one?

The panel majority determined that in taking away the designation of “marriage,” while leaving in place all the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners, Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren.

The Trojan Horse appears! So without California's domestic partnerships law they would have not been able to use that argument. Maybe they would have found another, but let this be a lesson to all states considering domestic partnerships or civil unions that will be treated like marriage. It is better to keep at least some legal attachments out of the mix.

The panel majority concluded that Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.

No purpose or effect? As if all of the marriage customs and laws worldwide for all of history, that for all of their nuances required both a groom and a bride, were nothing more than a conspiracy to stick it to homosexual people in twenty-first century California? The Amendment did not reclassify anyone's relationships. The Amendment was headed to the ballot before the state court jumped the gun. The brideless or groomless pairings issued state licenses in the time before the bride+groom requirement was reinstated (though there never should have been a lapse) keep their licenses as long as they want.

It is also incorrect that having different words for different things means one thing is inferior to the other.

The panel majority determined that it need not and did not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so.

If they don't have a fundamental right to a state "marriage" license, then how could the court intervene in the internal government of a state in this matter? A right was not being violated.

At least this does not extend to other states.

The panel held that proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to bring this appeal on behalf of the state.

That is important for California's direct democracy, though obviously courts can still invent excuses to overrule the legitimate process arriving at Constitutionally-sound law.

The panel accepted the determination of the California Supreme Court that the official proponents of an initiative have the authority to assert the State’s interest in defending the constitutionality of that initiative, wherethe state officials who would ordinarily assume that responsibility choose not to do so.

In the future, what the state officials will do is defend the propositions they don’t like, but deliberately botch the defense.

The panel affirmed the denial of the motion by the proponents of Proposition 8 to vacate the judgment entered by former Chief Judge Walker, on the basis of his purported interest in being allowed to marry his same-sex partner. The panel held that Chief Judge Ware did not abuse his discretion by finding that Chief Judge Walker was not obligated to recuse himself on the basis that he could be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

So let's review. The "right" to a marriage license without a bride is vitally important to gay men, and yet it couldn't have possibly biased a long-partnered gay man in his decision on the case. Riiiiight.

Judge N.R. Smith concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority opinion. Judge Smith agreed with the majority’s analysis that proponents had standing to bring this appeal and that the motion to vacate the judgment should be denied. Judge Smith dissented from the majority’s analysis regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8. He wrote that he was not convinced that Proposition 8’s withdrawal from same-sex couples of the right to access the designation of marriage was not rationally related to furthering the interests of promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting.

Well, good for Judge N.R. Smith for getting it mostly right.

On to a full 9th Circuit panel, or SCOTUS? The Amendment supporters want SCOTUS. How long will that take? Would Obama getting a second term have an impact on this case?