02/18/09 Sacramento Bee: In a 1966 "in a case [Mulkey v. Reitman, 64 Cal. 2d 529 (1966), aff'd 387 U.S. 369 (1967)] that divided Californians as much as same-sex marriage does today, the court overturned a voter-approved measure [Prop. 14] that had allowed housing discrimination based on race."
The Sacramento Bee reporter, Aurelio Rojas, appears at odds with his purpose. He relies on "legal experts" to undermine any basis for analogy to Mulkey v. Reitman, even if one obvious difference is that anti-Prop. 8 petitioners do not base their argument on equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The "legal experts" include Andrew Pugno, attorney for the Yes on Proposition 8 Campaign, and UC Berkeley Law Professor Emeritus Stephen Barnett. Rojas presents their view that the Prop. 8 litigtation concerns same-sex marriage, or a right to same-sex marriage, rather than equal protection of the right to marriage. Analogy to Mulkey fails because, according to Pugno, the U.S. Constitution lacks a right to same-sex marriage, or, per Barnett, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage.
But Mulkey and the Prop. 8 litigation sustain a compelling analogy: both involve core constitutional questions of equal protection. Petitioners in the Prop. 8 litigation contend that by violating the equal protection clause of the California Constitution [Cal. Const. Art. I, Sec. 7(a)], Prop. 8 changes the fundamental plan and democratic ordering of California's government, and thus represents an unconstitutional revision. California Attorney General Thomas Lynch argued in Mulkey that Prop. 14 (1964) represented unconstitutional discrimination by violating the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
Pugno disparages the petitioners for failing to claim violation of the 14th Amendment, asserting that they "do not want to risk losing in federal court because losing there would be a nationwide loss." Has this risk been overstated? UC Hastings Law Professor Brian Gray advances an argument that suggests it has. But Pugno's claim has support from within the marriage equality movement. See, for example, this statement by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force on whether marriage equality supporters should seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court: "Even the strongest gay rights case the Court has decided—the Lawrence case striking down laws against intimacy for gay couples-said it was not going to say anything about formal recognition of same-sex relationships."
This article also has comments by Santa Clara University Law Professor Gerald Uelmen and UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. Uelmen continues to express misgiving about a California Supreme Court ruling that overturns Prop. 8. If the Court agrees that the right of same-sex couples to marry "is so fundamental that to abolish it revises the constitution," Uelmen says, "the [a Court majority] would have to admit they revised the constitution in the first place." But Chemerinsky disagrees: ""If [the Court] concludes, as I believe it should, that this is a revision, then it is unconstitutional," Chemerinsky said. "The whole point of a constitution is to limit what the majority can do."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Commentators, Subjects and Cases
- 14th Amendment
- Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom
- Adar v. Smith
- Adoption
- Affaire de AFER
- Alan Brownstein
- Alex Kozinsky
- Alliance Defense Fund
- Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization
- Amy Margolin
- Andrew Koppelman
- Andrew Pugno
- Angelique Naylor
- Ann Ravel
- Anthony Romero
- Appling v. Doyle
- Arthur Leonard
- Asylum
- Austin R. Nimocks
- Baker v. Vermont
- Balde v. Alameda Unified School District
- Benson v. Alverson
- Beth Robinson
- Bishop et al v. State of Oklahoma et al
- Bobbie Wilson
- Bonilla v. Hurst
- Boseman v. Jarrell
- Brad Sears
- Brenda Cox
- Brian E. Gray
- Brian Raum
- Brian W. Raum
- Burns v. State of California
- California Assn. of Retail Tobacconists v. State of California
- California Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act
- California Family Protection and Marriage Recognition Act
- California Marriage Equality Act Initiative
- California Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act
- California State Bar
- Calvin Massey
- Camilla Taylor
- Campaign for California Families
- Campaign for California Families v. Newsom
- Carl Esbeck
- Carlos Ball
- Carlos Moreno
- Chad Griffin
- Chai Feldblum
- Chambers v. Ormiston
- Charles Cooper
- Charles S. Merrill v. IRS
- Christopher Krueger
- Civil Unions
- Cleveland Taxpayers for the Ohio Constitution v. City of Cleveland
- COBRA
- Cole v. Arkansas
- Collins v. Brewer
- Colorado Civil Union Benefits and Responsibilities Act
- Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services
- Counsel
- Crawford v. Board of Education
- Custody
- D.C. Marriage Initiative of 2009
- D.C. Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009
- D.C. Stand for Marriage
- Dale Carpenter
- Dan Lungren
- Darren Spedale
- David Blankenhorn
- David Boies
- David Codell
- David Cruz
- David Llewellyn
- Dean v. District of Columbia
- Deb Kinney
- Deborah Wald
- Debra H. v. Janice R.
- Defense of Mariage Act
- Defense of Marriage Act
- Dennis Herrera
- Dennis Johnson
- Dennis Maio
- Designated Beneficiary Agreements
- Dissolution
- Divorce
- DOMA
- Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009
- Domestic Partnership Initiative
- Domestic Partnerships
- Doug Laycock
- Douglas Napier
- Douglas NeJaime
- Douglas W. Kmiec
- Dragovich v. U.S. Dept. Treasury
- e Photography LLC v. Vanessa Willock
- Edward Stein
- Elaine Photography LLC v. Vanessa Willock
- Elizabeth Gill
- Emily Doskow
- Equal Protection
- Erwin Chemerinsky
- Ethan Leib
- Eugene Volokh
- Eva Jefferson Paterson
- Evan Gerstmann
- Evan Wolfson
- Family Research Council
- First Amendment
- Florida Dept. of Families and Children v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G.
- Frederick Hertz
- Full Faith and Credit
- Gartner v. Newton
- Geoffrey Stone
- George Deukmejian
- Gerald Uelmen
- Gerritsen v. City of Los Angeles
- Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al.
- Gill v. Adkins
- Glen Lavy
- Glen Smith
- Glenn Stanton
- Gloria Allred
- Godfrey v. Spano
- Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health
- Goodwin Liu
- Greene v. County of Sonoma
- Gregory Johnson
- H.M. v. E.T.
- Harmon v. Davis
- Hernandez v. Robles
- Hi-Voltage Wires Works Inc. v. City of San Jose
- Hollingsworth v. Perry
- Hospital visitation
- Illinois Equal Marriage Act
- Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act
- Immigration
- In re Marriage Cases
- In re Marriage of Tara Ranzy and Larissa Chism
- In the Matter of Brad Levenson
- In the Matter of Karen Golinski
- In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.
- Inalienable Rights
- Iowa Marriage Amendment
- Ira Lupu
- Ireland Civil Partnership Bill 2009
- Irving Greines
- J.B. Van Hollen
- Jackson v. D.C. Elections Board II
- Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics
- James Bopp
- James Brosnahan
- James Hochberg
- Jane Schacter
- Jay Sekulow
- Jayne Dunnum v Dept of Employee Trust Funds
- Jean Love
- Jeff Amestoy
- Jeffrey S. Trachtman
- Jennifer Pizer
- Jerry Brown
- Jesse Choper
- Joanna Grossman
- John Berry
- John Eastman
- John G. Culhane
- John Oakley
- John Van de Kamp
- Jon Davidson
- Jon Eisenberg
- Jonathan Rauch
- Jordan Lorence
- Joseph G. Milizio
- Joseph Grodin
- Justice Joyce Kennard
- Justice Kathryn Werdegar
- Justice Ming Chin
- Karl Manheim
- Kate Kendell
- Katherine Darmer
- Katherine M. Franke
- Kathleen Sullivan
- Kenji Yoshino
- Kenneth Starr
- Kent Richla
- Kern v. Taney
- Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
- Kevin Norte
- Kevin Snider
- Ladle v. Islington
- Laurence Tribe
- Lawrence v. Texas
- Legal Parent
- Legislature v. Eu
- Leiland Traiman
- Lester Pines
- LetNHVote.com
- Lewis v. Harris II
- Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service
- Liberty Counsel
- Lisa Miller-Jenkins v. Janet Miller-Jenkins
- Liu
- Livermore v. Waite
- Liz Seaton
- Love Honor Cherish Initiative
- LUV Campaign
- LUV Iowa
- Lynn Wardle
- M. Katherine B. Darmer
- Maggie Gallagher
- Maine Question 1
- Maine Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom
- Maine Question 1
- Malcom Lucas
- Manhattan Declaration
- Marriage Alternative
- Marriage Equality Legislation
- Marriage Equality Repeal
- Marriage Protection Amendment
- Martha Nussbaum
- Martin Gill case
- Martinez v. Kulongoski
- Mary Bonauto
- Mary McAlister
- Maryland Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act
- Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. Health and Human Services
- Mathew Staver
- McConkey v. Van Hollen
- McD v L
- Michael Dorf
- Michael Perry
- Minnesota Marriage and Family Protection Act
- Mullens v. Hobbs
- Nan Hunter
- Nancy Polikoff
- Nelson Lund
- Nevada Domestic Partnership Act
- New Hampshire Equal Access to Marriage Legislation
- New Jersey Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act
- New York Marriage Equality Act
- O'Darling v. O'Darling
- O’Darling v. O’Darling
- Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Assoc. v. Vespa-Papeleo
- One Iowa
- Oral Arguments
- Out-of-State Marriage Recognition
- Pacific Justice Institute
- Pam Karlan
- Parenting
- Parker v. Hurley
- Patricia Cain
- Paul Brest
- Pennsylvania Marriage Equality Legislation
- People v. Frierson
- Perez v. Sharp
- Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
- Peter Obstler
- Peter Scheer
- Peter Teachout
- Political Reform Act of 1974
- Popular Constitutionalism
- Popular Democracy v Representative Democracy
- Portability
- Prendergast v. Snyder
- Rational Scrutiny
- Raven v. Deukmejian
- Referendum
- Reitman v. Mulkey
- Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act
- Religious Liberty Exemption
- Respect for Marriage Act
- Restore Equality 2010
- Retroactive v. Not Retroactive
- Revision v. Amendment
- Rhode Island Marriage Equality Bill
- Rick Garnett
- Robert George
- Robert Nagel
- Robin Fretwell Wilson
- Robin West
- Romer v. Evans
- Sam Marcosson
- Schalk and Kopf v. Austria
- Separation of Powers
- Shannon Minter
- Shelley Ross Saxer
- Shineovich v. Kemp
- Smelt v. United States of America
- State v. Carswell
- Stephen Bainbridge
- Stephen Barnett
- Stephen Page
- Stephen Reinhardt
- Steve Mayer
- Strauss v. Horton
- Strict Scrutiny
- Super DOMA Amendment
- Susan Sommer
- The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009
- Theodore Boutrous Jr.
- Theodore Olson
- Therese Stewart
- tobias Wolff
- Tom Berg
- U.C. Berkeley Law Professor Jesse Choper Choper
- U.S. v. Carolene Products Co.
- Uniting American Families Act of 2009
- Varnum v. Brien
- Vermont Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Promote Equality in Civil Marriage
- Vikram Amar
- Vivian Polak
- Washington Referendum 71
- William Araiza
- William Eskridge
- WVForMarriage.com
No comments:
Post a Comment