• Gay BlogAds

  • Gay News Watch

  • Chris Tweets

  • « Catholic charity doesn't begin at home | Main | Roberts gives gay marriage go ahead »

    March 02, 2010

    A third way for the Prop 8 case

    Posted by: Chris

    Judge vaughn walker gay marriage prop 8 case
    With all that's been written about the case brought by Ted Olson and David Boies challenging the constitution of Proposition 8, you would think that the outcome there will decide gay marriage nationwide. In fact, it well could, if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees that it's a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law to deny gay Americans the fundamental right of marriage to the person of their choice.

    We're a long way from that day, obviously, with the matter still before (semi-closeted gay) Judge Vaughn Walker in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. However Walker decides the case, it will be appealed as of right to a three-judge panel of the fairly predictably liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which could then decide to hear the case en banc (with all judges participating) if enough of them are unhappy with how the panel rules. Then comes the appeal to the Supreme Court, which will only hear it if a minimum of four justices want to.

    One factor that may help determine whether the nation's high court gets this gay marriage case is how broadly Judge Walker rules, if he strikes down Proposition 8. If he issues a sweeping ruling that gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment and that's upheld in the 9th Circuit, then odds are very strong the Supremes will take the case.

    But David Levine, a law professor at the University of California's Hastings College of Law, points out a third possibility:

    If [Walker] writes a more boring factual opinion of the special situation California is in, that would have the least impact nationwide. That argument is that there’s no rational reason to have three categories of unions in the state: heterosexual married people, domestic partners and the 18,000 same-sex married couples who were married in California.

    He could argue, what’s left that separates domestic partners and married couples in the state? If there’s no legal difference, then what is the rationale for saying there needs to be a distinct group?

    Keep in mind that even with Prop 8 in place, gay couples in California can enter into domestic partnerships that carry all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except the name (and the automatic portability to other states and countries). Also, California presents the unique situation where gays could marry for eight months and remain married still. Proposition 8 allowed the voters to amend the state constitution to take away existing rights from a single class of people, making it much more like the notorious Amendment 2 in Colorado that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer vs. Evans in 1996.

    Those unusual facts are very different than those presented by a gay couple in Georgia, for example, who could never marry in the years before the voters there amended the constitution to limit marriage to straight couples, and different also from gays in Maryland, for example, where the constitution is silent on the question and the state recognizes gay marriages from elsewhere.

    Judges (and justices) often like to decide lawsuits on the narrowest possible ground, following the principle of judicial restraint and reducing the risk they'll get reversed or overturned down the road.

    Given the strength of the presentations made at trial in the Prop 8 case, and the predilections of Judge Walker, I would be very surprised to see him choose this narrow, third way. The silver lining of such a narrow ruling, at least from some quarters, would be to stave off the day the Supremes get the gay marriage question, allowing for the possibility that President Obama might fill in some timely vacancies.



    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. Lucrece on Mar 2, 2010 9:48:56 PM:

      Is Walker really semi-closeted? Because as per other sources, it was openly known among legal circles-- the only circles that really give a damn about judges and lawyers-- that he was gay.

      With that said, I do feel like if there's a case that would get to the Supremes, there's no better team than Boies/Olson. Did you see the PBS 45 min segment interview with with Moyers, Boies, and Olson? It was fantastic.

    1. daftpunkydavid on Mar 3, 2010 1:01:27 AM:

      i fail to understand why you think that it would be surprising if walker ruled narrowly. i believe a narrow ruling, at his level, at the 9th circuit appellate court level, at the supreme court level, is exactly what we want (at least what i want).

      the california case, while similar to the other states with amendments on the books, is different in that people were already able to marry their same-sex lovers when it passed (even though the process to get the ballot measure started before in re marriage cases was decided).

      what works in the cali case is imho the fact that we can more easily show (thru campaign evidence for instance, or laws that allow gays to adopt, or the different marriage statuses) that there is indeed no rational basis for excluding "the gays" from marriage. it's still gonna be hard, but it's less hard than in texas or utah or north dakota.

      a narrow ruling would make any forceable backlash less harsh, i believe. it's one thing to rule against 1 state and another against 30.

      and once doma is overturned anyway then this whole thing really becomes a no-brainer, as people will be able to get both state and federal level recognition of their relationships til ultimately they can do it without having to travel hundreds of miles.

    1. cheap ugg boots on Nov 22, 2010 4:00:30 AM:

      It wasn't necessary for Roberts to write a lengthy explanation, but he chose to write one in which he emphasized that the reason he was not going to postpone the law was because the anti-gay group would have a change to have a court consider their argument -- an argument that Roberts said has "some force" -- that a referendum should be allowed after the new law becomes effective. I think Roberts was sending a message to the lower court that will consider the issue of the referendum.

    1. cheap uggs on Nov 28, 2010 11:28:54 PM:

      Hello I want to congratulate to them by its site of the Web of the excellent looks like entertained and very good very to me it elaborated. I invite them to that they explore a little on my Web site.

    1. antivirusfree on May 3, 2011 9:40:19 AM:

      the best antivirus for me!

    1. Escorts Manchester on Jul 7, 2011 4:25:19 PM:

      Hello!!! Lets all move forward on this one? 2011....

    1. arizona medical marijuana on Jul 11, 2011 8:48:01 AM:

      I think Roberts was sending a message to the lower court.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad