BREAKING — Ninth Circuit rules Prop 8 unconstitutional

by CynthiaYockey on February 7, 2012

I’ll be on a press conference shortly and will provide more info afterwards.

Update: Click here for the Ninth Circuit’s opinion rejecting Prop 8 as unconstitutional. (Click here for the opinion of the judge who concurred in part and dissented in part.) Ted Olson, on the teleconference call, just quoted the following from page 77:

It is enough to say that Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of “marriage,” with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Other highlights of the decision quoted on the teleconference call:

From page 5:

All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. 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 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.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).

From page 77:

In order to explain how rescinding access to the designation of ‘marriage’ is rationally related to the State’s interest in responsible procreation, Proponents would have had to argue that opposite-sex couples were more likely to procreate accidentally or irresponsibly when same-sex couples were allowed access to the designation of ‘marriage.’ We are aware of no such basis on which this argument would even be conceivably plausible. There is no rational reason to think that taking away the designation of ‘marriage’ from same-sex couples would advance the goal of encouraging California’s opposite-sex couples to procreate more responsibly. The Johnson argument, to put it mildly, does not help Proponents’ cause.

Another press conference will be held in San Francisco by the victorious attorneys for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Ted Olson and David Boies. It will be livestreamed at AFER’s website starting at 8 pm, ET (5 pm, Pacific) and here:

This is one of the happiest days of my life. I’m starting to wonder what equality will be like. I know that straight people have equality and are perfectly capable of making a hash of their lives anyway. But, still — just the thought of the opportunities and security that have been denied to me as a lesbian all my life because I am a lesbian now opening up makes me feel like my body — and my future — are filled with light.



Follow conservativelez on Twitter

EBL February 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm

I welcome that this makes you happy.  I welcome same sex marriage gaining greater acceptance.  I am not happy, however, with how this 9th Circuit decision was decided.  But I am glad for you.

Evi L. Bloggerlady February 13, 2012 at 6:54 pm
I have posted on this topic before, but you never put those posts up.  Perhaps it was just a computer glitch, but who knows.  While I support same sex marriage and would gladly vote for it, I believe it should be passed by the voters or legislatures, not the courts.  So while I support the passage of Washington State’s law, I believe the 9th Circuit was wrong on Proposition 8.  That you disagree is fine.  I respect that.  And you are free to run your blog as you deem fit.  But I am surprised as a conservative lesbian, you do not allow any debate on this issue.  

Cynthia Yockey February 17, 2012 at 5:42 pm

I’ve approved the comment I think you are referring to for a previous post. I’ve even added you to my blogroll. My attention to my blog has been spotty since Nov. 2010 so I could put my attention on my health. I’m almost finished with the tasks I need to accomplish before I can return to blogging every day. So the fact that I didn’t approve your comment before is not something to take personally. It just required more time than I had.

You can’t hold the position that it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and also say that these rights can be withheld by a popular vote. You must admit that you do not accept that truth and that you do not believe in the concept of liberty in any practical way. The purpose of the judiciary is to check the determination of the majority to deprive people they don’t like to second-class citizenship.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: