California’s 9th Circuit Court made a monumental ruling on Tuesday, Feb. 7th in a 2-1 decision to strike down Proposition 8.
California voters passed Prop. 8 in 2008, banning gay marriage after thousands of same-sex couples had exercised their brief legal right to marry, effectively stripping away a minority group’s civil rights.
But in 2010 District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and a violation of gay and lesbian rights. The ruling was huge, and Walker declared that California had no “rational basis” to take away a minority’s civil rights. Proponents of Prop. 8 appealed Walker’s decision on the grounds that Walker is gay and has a same-sex partner.
Perhaps Walker is biased, but with issues of civil liberties and gay rights it’s difficult to find someone who isn’t partisan. Prop. 8 voters felt the need to appeal though, and the case went to the 9th Circuit Court.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt announced the Circuit Court’s decision. “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.”
The main problem here is that same-sex marriage was allowed for several months before Prop. 8 was passed. By allowing gay marriage and then banning it, the bill stripped away a group’s civil liberties.
The ruling went on to state that, “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”
While this is only applicable to California, it’s still a huge move for gay rights, especially given the step backward that Prop. 8 caused. Only California will be affected by the Circuit Court’s decision, and not the entire nation, where other states never allowed gay marriage in the first place. Regardless, Prop. 8 went on for far too long. The ban itself was past due to be overturned.
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to say how long this will last; the group fighting for Prop. 8 has already promised to appeal the decision. Instead of the panel of three who voted against it, eleven members of the 9th Circuit will then meet to hear the case.
It’s wonderful that Prop. 8 has been struck down, a decision itself that is long overdue. Marriage should not be defined by gender or sexual orientation, but rather, by love and commitment. To limit gay rights and same-sex marriage with a different name, as if it were somehow less than straight marriage, is not only discriminatory, but also immoral. The truth is that same-sex marriage is just looking to provide gays and lesbians with the same opportunities that straight people enjoy; the joy of being bound to someone we love for the rest of our lives, knowing that we have found the right person, the person we want to grow old with. To deny gay people that right is to imply that they are somehow less than straight people, unworthy of the same liberties we are inherently born with.
It’s likely that once the appeal to the Circuit Court is over the case will go on to the Supreme Court. John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, stated on the group’s website in support of the ban that, “The ninth circuit court of appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling, is the most overturned federal judge in America.”
Yes, the case will probably continue to be appealed until it reaches the Supreme Court and America’s highest court puts the issue to rest. But until then, Eastman had better accept that he will soon be chairman of an organization that will need to recognize same-sex marriage.
To take away a group’s civil liberties and remove a right already granted to them is the worst kind of dismissal— what the 9th Circuit Court decided is the leap forward in the right direction, but one that should have never been necessary. I’m thrilled that Prop. 8 is overturned (at least, for now) but the decision to restore same-sex marriage in California is simply a correction of a wrong. Gay rights should be always improving until they are affording the same opportunities and liberties that heterosexual people have. This reversal is merely a correction of a mistake.
People like Eastman can fight same-sex marriage all they want, but that won’t change what’s unconstitutional and what isn’t. Appeal to our nation’s highest court, please. Someday gay rights will be equal to Eastman’s rights, whether he likes it or not. There’s a limit to how long you can deny a group its rightful civil liberties, and our nation is quickly reaching it.
Rich Solomon can be reached at richard.solomon@spartans.ut.edu.