Ninth Circuit Won't Say If "Same-Sex Couples May Ever Be Denied the Right to Marry"
As Peter Suderman noted below, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted today to strike down California's Proposition 8, which had amended the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage. While this is a big win for the cause of gay rights, it is not a definitive judicial ruling in favor of gay marriage. As Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt states in his majority opinion, the court refused to touch the big question of whether the Constitution protects a right to gay marriage:
Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question. It is currently a matter of great debate in our nation, and an issue over which people of good will may disagree, sometimes strongly. Of course, when questions of constitutional law are necessary to the resolution of a case, courts may not and should not abstain from deciding them simply because they are controversial. We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already committed to same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of 'marriage,' and Proposition 8's only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents. This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment's constitutionality on narrow grounds.
In other words, Reinhardt attempted to craft a relatively narrow decision both to minimize the likelihood of the Supreme Court hearing an appeal in the case (if one is filed), and to postpone the ultimate battle over the constitutionality of gay marriage until some later date. Had he issued a sweeping opinion that found gay marriage to be a protected right, the Supreme Court would almost certainly have agreed to hear the appeal. So why not force the vote? Perhaps Reinhardt doesn't think there are five current Supreme Court justices in favor of gay marriage and he doesn't want to give the Court a chance to rule on the issue just yet.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Let me fix that for you:
Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by [many, but not all] opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question.
And another thing. Show me where "couples" have rights. I don't think you can. Couples don't have rights, people do. And people have long had the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.
If the left doesn't want to give corporations rights, why should couples or families have rights?
Couples are two individuals and Corporations are made up of many individuals. Those individuals don't lose their rights when they choose to freely associate.
I have no problem letting two or more corporations that are in love get married.
I have no problem letting two or more corporations that are in love get married.
Of course, one must be woman-owned.
But, but the corporations have too much money to have rights. They might use that money while invoking their 1st Amendment right to free speech, like say, in endorsing a candidate for political office.
I like how you use sarcasm. It's edgy.
California had already committed to same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of 'marriage,' and Proposition 8's only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents.
I'm a little puzzled by how the designation of marriage is legally significant, when denying it denies none of of the [legal] incidents of marriage.
Its things like this that make me wonder how much of the push for gay marriage rather than civil union is a push to force social/cultural acceptance of homosexuality, rather than legal equality.
Wouldn't that be akin to "separate but equal"?
no question
"Separate but equal" was a lie, and everyone knew it.
In CA, the "legal incidents" are exactly equal.
As the court all but admits, this is about social acceptance, not legal equality. And I'm pretty sure "equal protection under the law" is about legal equality.
I'm certain that a "push to force social/cultural acceptance of homosexuality" is part of the agenda of some professional "progressives" and militant anti-theist pests who desire to tweak the noses and sensibilities (and bigotries) of Christian and social conservatives; regardless of the motives of its advocates, and whether they argue it honestly or ethically, same-sex marriage contracts meet the criteria of protected civil rights that opposite-sex contractees enjoy. The rightness of the issue is theirs.
same-sex marriage contracts meet the criteria of protected civil rights that opposite-sex contractees enjoy.
Indeed, and CA provides exactly the same legal incidents of marriage to both sorts.
Yup. Maybe same-sex marriage advocates (and journalists) should take a more intelligent approach and drop the "gay" marriage lingo. After all, wouldn't straight couples also have the right to marry and enjoy all the rights and privileges of opposite-sex partners who may or may not love and/or have sex with each other? "Marriage" does not guarantee or infer sexual proclivities or love. It's just a contract.
It's all about the culture war. It's about social using the law to promote social acceptability. From the opinion:
"We are excited to see someone ask, "Will you marry me?", whether on bended knee or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see "Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?". Groucho Marx's one-liner, "Marriage is a wonderful institution... but who wants to live in an institution?" would lack its punch if the word "marriage" were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeare's "A young man married is a man that's marr'd," Lincoln's "Marriage is neither heaven no hell, it is simply purgatory," and Sinatra's "A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's too late." We see tropes like "marrying for love" versus "marrying for money" played out again and again in our films and literature because of the recognized importance of the marriage relationship. Had Marilyn Monroe's film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie" etc.
Come to think of it, those choices of quote are kind of cynical.
Anyway, these majority judges are clearly better qualified to have a cable comedy show than to adjudicate important cases.
Holy shit, the Ninth Circus is more full of it than I originally thought.
I wonder if this will get an en banc hearing. I want to hear what Kozinski has to say.
The majority judges seem to derive a campy enjoyment from old movies and comedies, NTTAWWT.
I've always assumed that was the sole reason for the push. They were going to get civil unions without much trouble.
Its things like this that make me wonder how much of the push for gay marriage rather than civil union is a push to force social/cultural acceptance of homosexuality, rather than legal equality.
Now see, it just makes me wonder if all the fuss is just about the definition of a fucking word. Let's admen the Constitution to protect the narrow definition of a word that is already being redefined by the forward movement of history!
admen
Your love of Don Draper reveals itself in the oddest places.
Hippies stole mah "D"!
I can't wait for the first homophobic asshole to trot out the "homos can get married; to women" argument. That shit never gets old.
As troglodytic as that argument tends to be, it strikes at an important legal note: that "equal protection" can mean that the institution of One Man-One Woman is held out equally to all comers.
Would a state that changed its driver's license age requirement to 18 violate equal protection? Why or why not?
You're merely talking semantics, which is usually what the masturbation over legal terms is about, such as over the 2nd Amendment.
I don't really care if "one man one woman" is held out equally, because it still isn't equal, since homos and lesbians don't want that.
This is what annoys me about lawyers and those who tolerate them. They're basically bureaucrats who, to quote Futurama, look to be "technically correct, which is the best kind of correct", and don't consider anything other than that.
Like I said, driver's licenses that are held out to 16-year-olds and not 15-year-olds is unequal, too.
Not every state action that is unequal is illegal or even unjust. Furthermore, an unjust act by a state is not an excuse to toss federalism out of the window.
Furthermore, an unjust act by a state is not an excuse to toss federalism out of the window.
Actually if something can be definitively determined to be unjust on the state level, I think that's exactly the right time for the feds to step in.
Fuck federalism and "laboratories of democracy". Individual rights should be protected at whatever level is necessary.
It's all well and good to say "fuck federalism" until you're forced by national mandate to buy health insurance. I bet you aren't saying "fuck federalism" when it comes to marijuana issues.
I say fuck anything that violates individual rights. If federalism results in me having more negative rights respected by the government that claims to have jurisdiction over me, then fine, but having federalism as the goal itself means some form of the majority telling other people what to do. If a universal government existed whose sole directive was ensuring I can do whatever the hell I want as long as I don't hurt anyone else, federalism could kiss my ass.
because it still isn't equal, since homos and lesbians don't want that.
Oh, so a "right" is determined by what people want? Outlawing sex with five year olds isn't equal because some people don't want that? And here I thought you were just a thoughtless sock puppet.
Would a state that changed its driver's license age requirement to 18 violate equal protection? Why or why not?
'
I think it might. A driver's license should be based on one's ability to drive. Although age is an important influence on that ability, it is not sufficient to determine the ability.
But then, just like state marriage, I'm against driver's licenses as well.
It wouldn't, but that is because driving is a privilege, not a right (unfortunately).
I think that the anti-gay-marriage crowd is full of homophobic trogs, but the pro-gay-marriage-no-matter-what group is full of totalitarian airhead liberals who are FUCKING CLOGGING UP MY FACEBOOK RIGHT NOW.
Fair enough. I know I can get my "speaking legally" and "speaking libertarianally" mixed up sometimes.
"driving is a privilege, not a right (unfortunately)"
There's that lawyerly masturbation again. Driving is a negative right.
You should have read the epic and world-altering debate we had with John in the original thread earlier today. The whole thing was totally gay.
That's a good rhetorical strategy. Preemptive ad hominem.
White people are free to marry white people, and black people are free to marry black people. There for, the law is not racist.
/1964 defender of marriage.
The law was racist, there is no doubt about that. Certain Woolworth's counters were racist, too, but that doesn't mean freedom of association should get tossed to rectify a particular injustice.
Federalism is an important process that, on net, yields more liberty by dispersing power. This is just another move that centralizes Federal power and deprives the state of an area where it was traditionally permitted to administer.
The law should not treat people of different races differently.
The law can treat people of different sexes differently.
Homosexual males are a different sex than heterosexual males?
BTW, since the ERA never was ratified - yes, legally speaking the sexes can be treated differently. Not that that is a good idea, but it is legal.
So separate restrooms and locker rooms for men and women are not a good idea?
I have no issue with unisex bathrooms.
What? No. Homosexual males are the same sex as hetrosexual males. So they are treated the same. All males can marry females but not males.
Females are treated differently. They can marry males but not females.
It's not irrelevant though -- it illustrates one of the problems with non-libertarian egalitarianism: it doesn't really distinguish morally between giving everyone the freedom to go after the thing they want, and giving everyone the exact same thing (which only some of them want).
Shorter me: Both arguments are properly egalitarian, but one is more libertarian.
But you had to be the first asshole to trot out the Newspeak propaganda scare word "homophobia". Jackass.
The right to have notarized paperwork on your marriage, you mean. The marriage can happen regardless. I'm not necessarily against recognized same-sex marriage, but it would be appropriate for a magazine called Reason to frame the situation correctly. (Na zdorovye.)
Apparently Reinhardt being slapped down repeatedly has actually learned something. Whodathunkit.
I was gonna say... Regardless of the respective political leanings of the appellate court and the Supreme Court, most judges don't like being overturned on appeal, and the easiest way to guarantee that is to not stick your neck out in the first place. It's not a phenomenon unique to the issue of gay marriage.
But who's going to buy their "we are just using a narrow rationale, nothing to see here" argument?
The Supremes know about the kind of mischief the 9th Circ. likes to get up to - will they shrug it off simply because they pretend to avoid the major issue while "coincidentally" overturning every defense of traditional marriage - which I presume is their strategy here. A broader agenda is at work, and I doubt they'd uphold any ban on SSM, they'd just find "narrow grounds" to overturn each and every such law. Narrow, indeed.
After the insane CU decision, we felt it best to wait for Obama's 2d term appointments.
So why not force the vote? Perhaps Reinhardt doesn't think there are five current Supreme Court justices in favor of gay marriage and he doesn't want to give the Court a chance to rule on the issue just yet.
Or, Reinhardt isn't as concerned with determining the constitutionality of the issue as much as he is with finding a court that agrees with his opinion.
IOW, he's just another partisan asshole.
DISCLAIMER: I voted and campaigned for the passage of Prop 8. Not because I wanted gays to be banned from marriage, but because I wanted just such a constitutional crisis to arise so the SC could settle the issue.
I voted and campaigned
Please turn in your libertarian top hat and monocle, please.
This is what I tried to say in the other thread.
Marriage for homosexuals had already been established as a right in CA using state legal processes.
After that occurred, Prop 8 was conceived and passed specifically to change that.
I am not a fan of the rational basis test, but in this instance the history of 14th amendment case law seems to be pretty clear: that when it's transparently obvious that the specific intent of a law is to withdraw a previously-extended right, you need to articulate a reason that can pass judicial review.
I know many people are adamant that when the 14th amendment was passed, no one anticipated that it might apply to this situation, but in the most critical way this is exactly the situation it was designed to address: a state extended a right, and then an outraged majority tried to withdraw that right from a minority. The 14th amendment says you can't do that.
That also means this doesn't apply to states where gay marriage never existed for any length of time. Procedurally, those states are in a much different position than CA is.
They're not soft enough targets yet. But that will change.
Fluffy, that can't be right. What you describe is a ratchet in favor of rights and liberty, and we all know the ratchet only turns the other way.
It all makes sense once you consider that the typical rights being created and/or zealously defended these days are rights to steal, kill, silence, or coerce (once you strip out the fancy rhetoric).
Though I'm most sympathetic to the right to kill ones (abortion and armed self-defense), so I don't know what that says about me.
Enough already. "Legal" marriage as a thing that government is involved in is a fucking stupid idea that doesn't make any sense in the modern world. Whether for immigration, taxes, employer-provided benefits, wills, or any other thing, why not let the individuals define their own relationships as they see fit?
No, no, no, that's sensible. Needs moar homophobia.
My way would be good for straights too. Are you a foreigner with a US work visa? If you want to bring your woman, you have to legally marry her. Want to add your significant other to your health insurance? Marry that shit.
The only people who would argue against it would be people who are hoping to tie someone to them even if that person wants to leave (pathetic asshole scum, in other words), or people who are hoping to soak their spouse for alimony/support upon divorce (extra vile asshole scum).
I agree, as long as we understand that this would mean equal protection then applies to threesomes, fivesomes, cousins, whatever floats your boat.
3 is probably fine, anymore could get out of hand.
why not let the individuals define their own relationships as they see fit?
That way leads to ... chaos!
But how would government promote the ideals that are in our best interests?
I think NZ was headed that direction, maybe? Civil unions as a general purpose legal arrangement rather than a euphemism for same-sex sexual relationships with legal benefits.
If this movement keeps winning, sooner or later it will be creeping more and more into regulating our personal freedoms in favor of them.
People seem to forget, most of MLK Jr. and his movement getting hosed is because they went into a private property they absolutely knew they weren't allowed to be at and refused to leave.
Lets stop pretending whether you are pro gay marriage or not that this movements successes always turn out badly, instead of simplifying the tax code and abolishing marriage period, its all about social acceptance, by force.
Right, but at the state level the same property-rights destroying legal prohibitions against "discrimination" already extended to sexual preference in all the states worth living in anyway.
"Oh my god next we might not be able to discriminate against homosexuals in employment and housing and at restaurants!" is not that scary a Cassandra position to me because everywhere I've ever lived (AFAIK) I already couldn't do that. Except for VA, I'm not sure there.
simplifying the tax code and abolishing marriage
Surely "abolishing the tax code and simplifying marriage" would be better.
My problem with this decision is that it means "equal protection" can mean pretty much anything. Hey, the governor has state-supplied bodyguards and I don't! My right to "equal protection" has been unconstitutionally restricted! The only way to avoid such absurdities is to stick with what the words of the constitution meant when they were written. If you want to change them, great, there are established ways to do so. But please don't warp the established meanings of the words because you think everything you approve of should be constitutional, and anything you dislike should be unconstitutional.
+1
Oh wow, so why didnt I ever think of that? I mean like wow.
http://www.anon-puter.tk
"We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already committed to same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of 'marriage,' and Proposition 8's only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents."
So if a court establishes a "right" to say healthcare, and the populace decides that there is no such thing, the people cannot constitutionally overrule the courts's new definition of a "right" no matter how absurd or impractical it may be. That is the gist of the 9th Circuit Court's decision.
The people must never be allowed to overrule the judicial branch's dictates.
+1000
Actually, no.
If a court decides there's a right to health care, and then by referendum decides that doesn't apply to some subset of the state's population while leaving the "health care right" in place for other subsets of the population, that referendum will lose in court if challenged on equal protection grounds.
There *are* other issues, you know.
No, there are more than one:
Starving grandmothers and children
Global warming
Rich people keeping any of their money
If nothing else, todays ruling will probably go a long way in giving a second wind to Rick Santorum's campaign. So it wasn't entirely useless.