MPR News Chief Meteorologist Paul Huttner signs off

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support


      SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared
California's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional but agreed to
give sponsors of the bitterly contested, voter-approved law time to
appeal the ruling before ordering the state to resume allowing gay
couples to wed.


      The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S.
Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010
that Proposition 8 - a response to an earlier state court decision
that legalized gay marriage - was a violation of the civil rights
of gays and lesbians.


      "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," states the
opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the court's most
liberal judges.


      However, the appeals panel took pains to note that its decision
applies only to California, even though the court has jurisdiction
in nine western states. California is the only one of those states
where the ability for gays to marry was granted then rescinded, the
court noted in its narrowly crafted opinion.


      "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," the court said. "We need not and do not answer the
broader question in this case."


      The ruling will not take effect until the deadline passes for
Proposition 8's backers to appeal to a larger panel of the 9th
Circuit. Lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups
that sponsored the measure said they have not decided if they will
seek a 9th Circuit rehearing or file an appeal directly to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

      "We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack
on marriage - tried in San Francisco - turned out this way. But we
are confident that the expressed will of the American people in
favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court," said Brian
Raum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian
legal aid group based in Arizona that helped defend Proposition 8.


      One legal analyst said the U.S. Supreme Court might not agree to
take up the case on appeal because the appeals court focused its
decision exclusively on California's ban.


      "The ruling is on the narrowest ground possible," said
University of Santa Clara constitutional law professor Margaret
Russell.


      Supporters of gay marriage praised the ruling as historic.


      "The message it sends to young LGBT people, not only here in
California but across the country, (is) that you can't strip away a
fundamental right," said Chad Griffin, president of the American
Foundation for Equal Rights. He formed the group with director Rob
Reiner to wage the court fight against Proposition 8.


      The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S.
Judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down the ban 18 months ago, was
biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that
he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man. Walker
ruled after the first federal trial to examine if the U.S.
Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.


      Proposition 8 backers had asked the 9th Circuit to set aside
Walker's ruling on constitutional grounds and because of the thorny
issue of the judge's personal life. It was the first instance of an
American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for
overturning a court decision.


      Walker publicly revealed he was gay after he retired. Supporters
of the gay marriage ban argued that he had been obliged to
previously reveal if he wanted to marry his partner - like the gay
couples who sued to overturn the ban.


      In its ruling Tuesday, the panel majority said it was
unreasonable to presume a judge cannot apply the law impartially
just because he is a member of the minority group at issue in a
case.


      "To hold otherwise would demonstrate a lack of respect for the
integrity of our federal courts," the opinion said.


      Reihardt, who was appointed to the appeals court by President
Jimmy Carter, was joined in the majority opinion by Judge Michael
Hawkins, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.


      Judge Randy Smith, who was appointed by President George W.
Bush, dissented, saying he disagreed that Proposition 8 served no
purpose other than to treat gays and lesbians as second-class
citizens.


      California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the
vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court
legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that
had limited marriage to a man and a woman.


      The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into
the California Constitution, thereby overruling the court's
decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights
from same-sex couples after they had already secured them and its
passage followed the most expensive campaign on a social issue in
the nation's history.


      The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a
think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has
estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month
window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme
Court upheld those marriages but ruled that voters had properly
enacted the law.


      Gov. Jerry Brown, in his previous role as attorney general, and
former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to defend Proposition 8
in court and left it to the ballot measure's sponsors to appeal
Walker's decision to the 9th Circuit.


      Brown issued a statement Tuesday saying, "The court has
rendered a powerful affirmation of the right of same-sex couples to
marry. I applaud the wisdom and courage of this decision."


      With same-sex marriages unlikely to resume in California any
time soon, Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group based in Los
Angeles, plans to gather signatures for a November ballot
initiative asking voters to repeal Proposition 8.


      Associated Press Writers Paul Elias, Garance Burke and Terence
Chea in San Francisco and Raquel Dillon in Los Angeles contributed
to this report.

Gallery

Crime, Law and Justice

A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared
California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting
the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely
consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Court: CA same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox