Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Supporters of same-sex marriage in across the state scored a major victory today when a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex weddings, was unconstitutional.

The 2-1 decision out of San Francisco, however, will likely be appealed to either the full 9th Circuit Court or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite the ruling, a stay on gay marriages in California will remain in effect while the court case continues.

But that didn't temper the elated reactions from supporters of same-sex unions.

Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet said he was hopeful that the ruling "will ultimately lead to a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the rights of thousands of same-sex couples to marry in California."

"No one should ever be denied equal rights and as the parents of two young children, my husband Christopher and I were heartened by the words of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority when he noted that "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,"' Pougnet said.

Palm Springs City Councilwoman Ginny Foat said the ruling was "not the end, but it's an important step."

"I was lucky enough to be one of the ones who was married, and I married 85 couples at the time it was legal," Foat said. "... Seeing people who were together 30 years, 40 years, seeing them with their families around them crying as they took their vows. It's something I'll never equal in my life as an elected official."

Foat, who married her longtime partner in Palm Springs in 2008, said her marriage was "making a public statement that my marriage to my partner was just as important as my sister's 40-year marriage."

According to the court panel's ruling, the proposition's primary impact was to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."

"It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain and use the designation of "marriage' to describe their relationships," according to the court's decision. "Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in child-rearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples.

"Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights to control their children's education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard those liberties."

Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins signed off on the ruling, while Judge N. Randy Smith dissented, writing in a separate opinion that he was "not convinced that Proposition 8 is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest."

Opponents of same-sex marriage were equally strong in their words condemning the ruling.

Proposition 8 supporter Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, blasted the ruling, calling it "unfair to the voters, against our republic, against our democratic system..."

"It's illogical and unconstitutional to claim that natural, unchangeable race and ethnicity is the same as sexual behavior," he said. "That's not fair or true. Race and ethnicity are inherited, but science has never found homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality to be inherited or unchangeable."

The case had been pending before the appellate court for months, including a delay while it awaited a ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether proponents of Proposition 8 had legal standing to appeal the issue. The Supreme Court eventually said they do.

In March 2000, California voters approved Prop. 22, which specified in state law that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in California. But in May of 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gays, and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples got married in the ensuing months.

Opponents of same-sex marriage quickly got Prop. 8 on the November 2008 ballot to amend the state constitution, and it was approved by a margin of 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent. The approval was followed by statewide protests and lawsuits challenging Prop. 8's legality.

In May 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, but also ruled that the unions of roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed in 2008 would remain valid.

Same-sex marriage supporters took their case to federal court, and U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled in August 2010 that Proposition 8 "both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

Backers of Proposition 8 -- ProtectMarriage.com -- appealed to the 9th Circuit, because then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to do so. The appellate court heard arguments last year, but put a decision on hold while it awaited the state Supreme Court's ruling on the ability of Prop. 8 backers to press the case forward.

Once the state Supreme Court decided that Prop. 8 supporters had legal standing, the 9th Circuit moved ahead with its consideration of the case, hearing more arguments in December on a motion by Prop. 8 backers asking that Vaughn's ruling be thrown out because the judge was in a long-term same-sex relationship that he had not disclosed.

Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, said the issue would definitely be appealed, but a decision had not yet been made on whether to ask the full 9th Circuit court to hear the case or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We're not surprised by this decision, and expected a 2-1 decision and the interpretation of the equal-protection clause is what's at root here, as well as whether marriage should be defined according to the wishes of two people or whether it should be defined in terms of its purpose and definition for society and future generations," Prentice told KNX Newsradio in Los Angeles.

Gov. Jerry Brown issued a statement 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."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also praised the court's ruling.

"Today is an important victory for fairness and equality and against discrimination. I could not be prouder of our judicial system," Feinstein said.

Kevin Bass, who works in Palm Springs and serves on the board of directors of the Human Rights Campaign, called the ruling "historic."

"It affirms that we live in a country that is inclusive," he said. "... Now we just have to wait and see what happens with the next showdown, because this is far from over."

Andy Linsky, a Palm Springs resident who co-chairs the Human Rights Campaign's foundation, said the appeals court "has once again reaffirmed that discrimination should have no part in the California constitution."

Ron deHarte, president of Greater Palm Springs Pride, called the ruling a victory in a struggle for equal rights.

"(It is) a victory over Prop 8 supporters who have spent millions of dollars to discriminate against same-sex couples. Today we have a victory that gets same-sex couples one step closer to (marrying) the person they love," he said. "This is a significant ruling from the 9th Circuit and this is a time to celebrate. However, the work to ensure the fundamental human right of marriage is granted to all people will continue until marriage equality is a reality."

George Zander, the Palm Springs-based Riverside/San Bernardino counties field manager for Equality California, said the ruling "basically agreed with the premise that it was a discriminatory law that was passed."

"The court was saying that political arguments on a ballot issue are not valid," he said. "People (in support) of Prop. 8 brought their rhetoric into the courtroom last time and it was overturned."