Summer Sale Extended! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
News Opinion Editorial

Proposition 8 ruling: A limited win for equality

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a lower court's ruling that California's Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage, was unconstitutional is surely a good outcome and an advance for equality. Already backers of same-sex marriage in Maryland, including Gov.Martin O'Malley, are expressing optimism that it will provide a boost to their efforts here. But the 2-1 opinion is so narrowly drawn that, even if it is upheld by theU.S. Supreme Court in an inevitable appeal, it may have little bearing on the situation in Maryland and elsewhere.

The judges in California made what sounds like a sweeping statement in the opening lines of their opinion: "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 Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort." The Constitution requires that state and local laws have a legitimate basis for treating different classes of people differently, the judges wrote, but "there was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted."

But it is important to note the context in which the judges made those statements. Because California had already granted same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples (via a domestic partnership law) and because California courts had recognized gay marriage as protected under the state constitution, the effect of Proposition 8 was merely to forbid them from having their relationships officially designated as "marriages." Consequently, the judges write, Proposition 8 had no effect on any of the purported justifications of its proponents: the raising of children, religious freedom or the teaching of content related to homosexuality in the schools.

The official designation of "marriage" is no small thing, the judges write. It "symbolizes state recognition and societal recognition of their committed relationships." But because the decision focuses on the specific context of how that word is applied in the context of California law, it sidesteps the broader question of whether gay marriage can ever be prohibited under the Constitution.

That may well increase the chances that this decision will be upheld by a broader panel of appeals judges and, eventually, by theU.S. Supreme Court. But it also means any eventual decision would likely fall short of what advocates want: an unequivocal statement that the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution render any law prohibiting same-sex marriage invalid. The plaintiffs in the case against Proposition 8 made a powerful argument for such a conclusion, and the defendants' case was laughably weak. Claiming, as Proposition 8 supporters did, that the state must endorse only opposite-sex marriage because of its interest in procreation is an argument against divorce or out-of-wedlock birth, or perhaps for a requirement that all married couples have children. Stripped of religious doctrine and tradition as justifications, it became clear that discrimination against same-sex couples can have no basis in law.

All we can hope for out of this case now is for the courts to recognize the right of same-sex couples in California to marry, surely a good thing but little help to families here in Maryland. The state does not have a domestic partnership law equivalent to California's, and Maryland's highest court ruled several years ago that the existing ban on same-sex marriage was legal under the state constitution. That means the operative logic at work in the federal appeals court's decision would have no bearing here. No matter what the Supreme Court does, advocates will have to keep at the difficult work of securing votes in favor of marriage equality in the legislature.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Marriage equality can't wait

    Marriage equality can't wait

    In 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, there was not a single dissent. Never mind that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute had been in the books since 1924. The justices unanimously found discrimination in the institution of marriage...

  • How will Kennedy vote on same-sex marriage?

    How will Kennedy vote on same-sex marriage?

    As a long-time civics teacher I follow the Supreme Court's decisions very carefully. I have long admired Justice Anthony Kennedy because he is the swing vote on the court and his decisions are often unpredictable.

  • Court's silence on marriage speaks volumes [Editorial]

    Court's silence on marriage speaks volumes [Editorial]

    Our view: Same-sex marriage is set to be legal in a majority of states, making eventual Supreme Court victory appear inevitable

  • Religious beliefs can't excuse discrimination

    Religious beliefs can't excuse discrimination

    A recent suggestion that some people should be exempt from serving gays because of their religious beliefs is nonsense. If you are licensed to provide a service or employed by the government to do so, you are required to perform that service without unlawful discrimination. Neither government employment...

  • Equality in Alabama

    Equality in Alabama

    These are heady days for advocates of marriage equality. The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments this spring in a group of cases that could settle the question of a national Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and this week, a decision not to enter a stay on the enforcement of a federal...

  • Yes, some people do follow the Bible to the letter

    Yes, some people do follow the Bible to the letter

    In his recent column ("The conservative case for same-sex marriage," March 29), Eddie Zipperer gives three reasons why conservatives should favor same sex marriage. I find his second, poking fun at the Bible, to be both offensive and ignorant.

  • Get states out of the marriage business

    Get states out of the marriage business

    In light of the recent Supreme Court on same sex marriage being protected under the Constitution ("Freedom to marry," June 27), there is now a movement afoot in Montana by a Mormon, Nathan Collier, who is legally married to Vicki, to be allowed to marry his second wife, Christine. Many have predicted...

  • Selective reading of Leviticus won't justify bigotry

    Selective reading of Leviticus won't justify bigotry

    Letter writer Adam Goldfinger objected to Eddie Zipperer's references to Leviticus and states that he does indeed try to follow the laws in this book ("Yes, some people do follow the bible to the letter," April 3). I find myself wondering how many people Mr. Goldfinger has personally stoned to...