Disliking Us Is No Longer a Legal Rationale
“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.’” — Majority Opinion, Perry v. Brown, February 7, 2012
And with that, on Tuesday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed district judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. There is much about this ruling to like, many great phrases and strong legal analysis that lays bare what we all know: There was no reason for voters to pass Prop. 8 other than dislike, discomfort, or distaste for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and our relationships.
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans, not liking a group of people is not a sufficient justification for denying them rights and protections guaranteed by our Constitution. And in the case of Prop. 8, the court focused on the fact that Prop. 8 eliminated a right by popular vote. At some level, most of us know in our gut that allowing such tyranny of the majority would lead to some very ugly outcomes, and now we have a federal appellate court joining our chagrin at such a state of affairs.
Make no mistake, while the Prop. 8 ruling is narrowly crafted and addresses only the unique circumstances of California, this is a huge deal. This ruling marks the first time a federal appellate court has ever ruled that denying the right to marry to same-sex couples is irrational. You know that. I know that. But now we have a federal appeals court backing us up.
http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Oped_Disliking_Us_Is_No_Longer_a_Legal_Rationale/
= new reply since forum marked as read
