Gay Marriage Decisions--Recap and Clarification (Part 2: Prop 8)

In the last post, we recapped the DOMA decision. Now let's take a quick look at what the Supreme Court did with California's Proposition 8. Hopefully this will help clarify what the Court actually decided, as well as the actual consequences of that decision. (And once again, for anyone who would prefer to watch or listen to interviews instead--or in addition--see the links below.)

The Prop 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry)

Let's start with this:

The Court in this appeal decided nothing whatsoever about the merits of the same-sex marriage controversy.

But there were consequences.

The decision itself only involved the technical issue of "standing." For that reason, let's just give the briefest outline of the decision--actually, a nutshell of a nutshell. (Another nutshell2 ?). Then we'll outline, in a bit more detail, the underlying background of the case to which there's somewhat more substance and significance.

Nutshell of a nutshell (Nutshell2)

In his opinion for the majority (Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan), Chief Justice Roberts said that the proponents of Prop 8--who brought the appeal to the Supreme Court--had no "standing" to do so; they had nothing personal at stake in the outcome.
In his opinion for the dissenters (Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor), Justice Kennedy argued that the proponents of Prop 8 did have a special relationship to it; they were the ones who sponsored that voter initiative in the first place.
Bottom line: because the proponents had no right to appeal, the original decision of the federal district (trial) judge--that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced--remains in effect, at least unless or until a higher court rules otherwise.

Now, a few more details.

The background and facts underlying the Prop 8 case:

[This is the more interesting part of the case.]

Gay Marriage at the Court (Part 2)

In the last post, we considered the arguments against same-sex marriage. We began by listing several which we often hear, but which the lawyers supporting California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) certainly did not bother to make at the Supreme Court.

In this post, let's outline the arguments that the lawyers opposing Prop 8 and DOMA--i.e., the lawyers supporting same-sex marriage--did make at the Court:

Marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.
Prop 8 violates that right by denying it to same-sex couples.
DOMA violates that right by denying recognition and benefits to same-sex married couples.

Equal protection of the laws is a constitutional guarantee to all persons against discrimination.
Prop 8 and DOMA violate equal protection by discriminating against gays, lesbians, and same-sex couples when they choose to marry.

Gay Marriage at the Court

It's condemned in the Bible.
It's immoral.
It's an unnatural perversion.
It's a psychological malady.
It's a threat to traditional marriage.
It's bad for the children.
There's no right to homosexual sodomy mentioned or implied in the Constitution.
The government should not approve the homosexual lifestyle.
There's no discrimination against gays and lesbians, because they can marry members of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

None of this nonsense was argued before the Supreme Court.

No. Such nonsense--frequently mouthed on talk radio, on a certain news network by favored commentators, at right-wing political gatherings, by hate groups, and by others who should know better--was absent at the Court. There was none of that when the Court heard oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases in March.

Such legally irrelevant, bigoted, ignorant, or otherwise less than meritorious or completely idiotic assertions were avoided like the plague. And for the obvious reason. Because they are legally irrelevant, bigoted, ignorant, or otherwise less than meritorious or completely idiotic.

The lawyers who argued at the Supreme Court in favor of the anti-gay marriage federal and state laws were far too smart and too serious to make such arguments. Far too smart and too serious to claim that such arguments are legitimate.

[Videos of the interviews with me on the same-sex marriage cases on Liz Benjamin's Capital Tonight are accessible at the end of this post.]