Leave a Comment Johan
The top 10 quotations from the 9th Circuit’s Prop 8 ruling
February 8, 2012
By Jacob Combs
Prop8TrialTracker.com had the opportunity last evening to sit down and thoroughly read Judge Reinhardt’s compelling ruling striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. (You can find the full decision here.) Below are our 10 favorite quotations, chosen for their clarity and persuasiveness, their importance to the fight for full LGBT equality and (perhaps surprisingly) their humor.
1. “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.” (5)
2. “By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the federal Constitution]. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.” (79-80)
3. “Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.” (77)
4. “It will not do to say that Proposition 8 was intended only to disapprove of same-sex marriage, rather than to pass judgment of same-sex couples as people. Just as the criminalization of “homosexual conduct … is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination in both the public and private spheres,” so too does the elimination of the right to use the official designation of “marriage” for the relationships of committed same-sex couples send a message that gays and lesbians are of lesser worth as a class — indeed, that they enjoy a lesser societal status.” (73, internal citations omitted)
5. “By emphasizing Proposition 8′s limited effect, we do not mean to minimize the harm that this change in the law caused to same-sex couples and their families. To the contrary, we emphasize the extraordinary significance of the official designation of ‘marriage.’ That designation is important because ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not.” (37)
6. “The incidents of marriage, standing alone, do not, however, convey the same governmental and societal recognition as does the designation of ‘marriage’ itself. We do not celebrate when two people merge their bank accounts; we celebrate when a couple marries. The designation of ‘marriage’ is the status that we recognize.” (39)
7. “Proposition 8′s only effect, we have explained, was to withdraw from gays and lesbians the right to employ the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their committed relationships and thus to deprive them of a societal status that afford dignity to those relationships. Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren.” (69)
8.”It is the designation of ‘marriage’ itself that expresses validation, by the state and the community, and that serves as a symbol, like a wedding ceremony or a wedding ring, of something profoundly important.” (37-8)
9. “It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman.” (63)
And the most colorful one of all:
10. “We need consider only the many ways in which we encounter the word ‘marriage’ in our daily lives and understand it, consciously or not, to convey a sense of significant. We are regularly given forms to complete that ask us whether we are “single” or “married.” Newspapers run announcements of births, deaths, and marriages. We are excited to see someone ask, “Will you marry me?”, whether on bended knee in a restaurant or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see “Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?”. Groucho Marx’s one-liner, “Marriage is a wonderful institution … but who wants to live in an institution?” would lack its punch if the word ‘marriage’ were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeare’s “A young man married is a man that’s marr’d,” Lincoln’s “Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory,” and Sinatra’s “A man doesn’t know what happiness is until he’s married. By then it’s too late.” We see tropes like “marrying for love” versus “marrying for money” played out again and again in our films and literature because of the recognized important and permanence of the marriage relationship. Had Marilyn Moneroe’s film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different. The name ‘marriage’ signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships.” (38-9)
What are yours?
Filed under: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,Prop 8 trial
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
48 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | February 8, 2012 at 10:12 am
@
2.
Bob | February 8, 2012 at 10:12 am
great quotations,,,, hope they get a lot of attention,,, ,,, good newsworthy quotes ,,, to help educate,,,,
3.
steven | February 8, 2012 at 10:15 am
Basically, 9th Circuit said, you can't take away existing rights…
4.
Waxr | February 8, 2012 at 10:15 am
#10 is beautiful.
5.
Colleen | February 8, 2012 at 10:17 am
That last quote is amazing, and very clearly sets out why "marriage" – as marriage – is so important. It would not change my information to introduce my partner as "my wife" instead of "my partner," but it changes the perception of the relationship. And, as always, perception tends to trump reality.
6.
frisky1 | February 8, 2012 at 10:20 am
Great post and quotes! Can you check numbers 4 and 8? They sound almost exactly the same and I can find them on page 73 but not on page 72 where it says 8 is from. Maybe I'm wrong?
And I'm very glad the Groucho Marx comment made it, when I flipped quickly through the decision yesterday I almost fell out of my chair seeing his name.
7.
Jacob Combs | February 8, 2012 at 10:24 am
Right you are–I just removed number 8 and added a new one that is also pretty great.
8.
JOhn D | February 8, 2012 at 10:28 am
Just niggling. Though the court thought they were quoting Groucho, the line is actually from Mae West.
9.
phoenix | February 8, 2012 at 10:34 am
OT, but I just saw an item saying that the other side is going to take their appeal directly to SCOTUS rather than requesting en banc review in the 9th Circuit. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/prop-8-suppo…
Anyone heard confirmation of this?
10.
ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ | February 8, 2012 at 10:35 am
Thank you, Jacob, for this wonderful collection of quotations!
I am very happy to read the words Reinhardt wrote in his decision: it is inspiring, especially for me all the way from Russia where the legislators are taking away gay people's right to free speech about homosexuality (calling the truth about gays and lesbians "propaganda of homosexuality among minors", you can be fined now in Russia for speaking out in support of LGBTs).
11.
Carpool Cookie | February 8, 2012 at 10:44 am
I like that Marilyn slithered her way in there : ) She was very ahead of her time in her personal life, and was one of the first modern women to chuck her bra and girdle, etc.
12.
José Merentes | February 8, 2012 at 10:44 am
"You can´t take away rights by a popular vote"! That´s exactly what it´s written on the Venezuelan Constitution ("Laws referring human rights can´t be submitted to referendum").
13.
José Merentes | February 8, 2012 at 10:48 am
I think quotation # 37 seems to open the window to a plausible similar opinion in a case involving "redefinition" of marriage.
14.
Carpool Cookie | February 8, 2012 at 11:18 am
I hope this doesn't invalidate the ruling ? ? ?
: )
15.
Jim H. | February 8, 2012 at 11:21 am
Has any consideration been given to appealing the decision the the Prop 8 sponsors do not actually have Article III Standing to defend under Federal Law ? I seem to remember an earlier decision by the Ninth–that those supportng the "English-only" law in Arizona that the govt. refused to defend did have standing–was subsequently overturned by the SCOTUS, who found that, under Federal Law, the defenders of a proposition did not have Federal standing, even if the government refused to defend it.
16.
Jim H. | February 8, 2012 at 11:23 am
Sorry, meant to say the decision of the Ninth that the defenders, in their view, do have standing…
17.
frisky1 | February 8, 2012 at 11:27 am
It would be the best argument the Prop Haters ever came up with. Yeah its tough to beat "I don't know, I don't know" but this just might do it. lol
Google told me that the quote is also attributed to the satirist HL Mencken and that Mae West did say it on film but Marx never did (or no one in my quick 1 minute search had listed an instance) but it may have been popular among the vaudeville set and used widely.
18.
Glen | February 8, 2012 at 11:47 am
Will you Civil Unionize with me??
Oh sweet heart! I thought you'd never ask!
19.
Mike995134 | February 8, 2012 at 11:50 am
Thanks for pulling these out as I was getting bogged down at times (too excited to read with 100% clarity). Love #1 and #10 the best!!!!!!!!!!
20.
rocketeer500 | February 8, 2012 at 11:54 am
LOL. Thanks I needed that laugh.
21.
Faceless Bureaucrat | February 8, 2012 at 11:55 am
I am not a lawyer and I don't know diddly about all this stuff.
But I did read the majority opinion and I was interested in this issue.
If I understand what the opinion said, it said that what should control is the relevant state law, and that the state law in AZ and the state law in CA were different. Judge Reinhardt was seeming to write this section while looking over his shoulder at the Supremes and the way they had reacted to the AZ case. He seemed to be saying that CA law controls in this instance, and the 9th took pains to get the CA law right, by certifying the question to the CA Supremes. He said they were following the CA Supremes in this instance.
Beyond that, what we need is a real lawyer to explain this issue to us. I am interested too.
22.
Ann S. | February 8, 2012 at 11:56 am
Still feeling the glow of hearing of the decision yesterday. Equality rocks!
23.
rocketeer500 | February 8, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Yes, that's what's posted on Protect Marriage.com
http://www.protectmarriage.com/blog/2012/02/prop-…
24.
RichB | February 8, 2012 at 12:10 pm
When this gets to SCOTUS, what is the procedure? Do they just review the record? New arguments? New evidence?
25.
Bob | February 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm
We've all been wrong about the purpose of Prop 8–even the defenders of it were wrong apparently. At least according to John Eastman, banning same-sex marriage was one of the intended consequences of same-sex marriage but it also (no I'm not making this up) banned polygamy.
You'll have to watch a good portion of the PBS broadcast linked at Joe.My.God to get to it, but…here it is: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/02/david-boies-…
Let's forget that none of the ballot literature or ads in favor of Prop 8 mentioned polygamy; apparently making sure that California couldn't someday institute plural marriage was an added and important feature of the ballot measure. And so, of course, the court ruling was incorrect. According to Eastman.
26.
Ed Cortes | February 8, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Is there any brief analysis of smith's dissent? I did a quick read, and he seemed to fall in line with the old, tired arguments that lost the case in the first place.
27.
Leo | February 8, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Really? Mr. Blankenhorn was so adamant during the trial that polygamous marriages are still marriages between one man and one woman…
28.
Kathleen | February 8, 2012 at 12:30 pm
In general terms, it's the same procedure you see in any appeals court, though what we've witnessed in the 9th Circuit appeal of this case isn't exactly typical. Typically, no new evidence, a review of record below but there are new briefs and oral arguments.
29.
Kathleen | February 8, 2012 at 12:36 pm
I don't read Pugno's statement to say they're skipping en banc review. Specifically he says:
"…we’ve known that the battle to preserve traditional marriage will ultimately be won or lost not here, but rather in the U.S. Supreme Court."
and
“We will immediately appeal this misguided decision…"
The first statement just says they expect to take it all the way to the Supreme Court and the second says they'll appeal this decision, but says nothing about to which court they will immediately appeal.
Am I missing something?
30.
Jacob | February 8, 2012 at 12:44 pm
I read it the same way. I hope they do skip en banc, but it doesn't seem to make a statement one way or another. Pugno even said on KQED the other night that they'll take "a few days" to figure out their next step, and he suggested that one of the other judges on the 9th Circuit might call for his/her colleagues to consider an en banc hearing, which is an option I wasn't aware existed.
31.
Sagesse | February 8, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I would have put money that they would go for en banc, not because they think they will win, but because it means a delay of a year on the way to the Supreme Court.
32.
Marta | February 8, 2012 at 1:00 pm
For me the best quote by far was this one on pages 68-69, which speaks to the whole "protect our schools" issue very eloquently and with a twist I hadn't heard before (bolding is mine):
Schools teach about the world as it is; when the world changes, lessons change. A shift in the state's marriage law may therefore affect the content of classroom instruction just as would the election of a new governer, the discovery of a new element, or the adoption of a new law permitting no-fault divorce: students learn about these as empirical facts of the world around them. But to protest the teaching of these facts is little different than protesting their very existence; it is like opposing the election of a particular governor on the ground that students would learn about his holding office, or opposing the legitimation of no-fault divorce because a teacher might allude to that fact if a course in societal structure were taught to graduating seniors. The prospect of children learning about the laws of the State and society's assessment of the legal rights of its members does not provide an independent reason for stripping members of a disfavored group of those rights they presently enjoy.
Other more quirky/humorous favorites:
1) Page 51: "Thus, when Congress, having chosen to provide food stamps to the poor in the Food Stamp Act of 1964, amended the act to exclude households of unrelated individuals such as 'hippies' living in 'hippie communes,' the SC[OTUS] held the amendment unconstitutional because "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a _legitimate_ governmental interest."
This part made me smile. Leave it to the 9th circuit to defend the rights LGB's by invoking the rights of hippies. And I guess this also rules out the 112th Congress trying to take away rights from hipsters, punks, goths, nerds or geeks.
2) Page 60 [Referring to Johnson vs. Robinson, a decision that said it was okay to offer benefits to veterans but not conscientious objectors]: "The Johnson argument, to put it mildly, does not help proponants' cause."
BAM! That's the sound of a legal smack down.
33.
Marta | February 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Ack! My html broke. In the first quote, the word "independent" is supposed to be differently-italicized than the rest of the quote. I managed to un-italicize it, but then didn't change the rest of the sentence back.
34.
celdd | February 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm
The Washington House Debate is live at 1 pm. Can be seen live streaming on TVW.org http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwlivepl…
All amendments failed
After much moving testimony by the pros, and the usual religion based testimony against, the measure passed 55 to 43 at 3:26 pm PST.
35.
Kathleen | February 8, 2012 at 1:07 pm
There's one paragraph devoted to it in the court staff summary.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80789246/10-16696-Summa…
36.
W. Kevin Vicklund | February 8, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Since plaintiffs are prevailing parties, they can't directly appeal the ruling of standing (as doing so would affect no change in their status). However, they can, and almost certainly will, cross-appeal the ruling on standing when proponents appeal the main decision. In other words, they can't appeal anything until proponents appeal first, then the opportunity is there. Hopefully that's clear?
37.
Marta | February 8, 2012 at 1:20 pm
In my non-professional opinion, he agreed with the majority on most of their main points, but basically went off of his own at the end because:
1) A "rational basis" for voters to pass something doesn't have to actually meet the legal standards for "rational" – as long as the people voting for Prop 8 thought that it would channel procreation and strengthen straight marriages, it doesn't matter that there's not actual logical connection between the two. As long as voters believed it was rational at the time, that's all that matters.
2) Thus, we cannot presume animus.
3) "Precedent evidences extreme judicial restraint in applying rational basis review to equal protection cases."
4) Thus, in the absence of presumed animus and in keeping with a tradition of restraint, Prop 8 cannot be declared unconstitutional.
The last sentence of the dissent is a quote quoting Baker vs. Nelson [SCOTUS denied cert for gay marriage case in 1979] from followed by the simple sentence "There is good reason for this restraint." This is a pretty weak ending, especially considering that the majority opinion ends in "For now, it suffices to say that the People of California may not… [blah, blah, blah] … thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of a disfavored class. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED."
It seems to me like wrote his opinion to say, "Look, I'm not going to say it's constitutional, but I can't say it's unconstitutional either." Kind of like in criminal trial, where you're pretty sure the bastard did it, but all of the evidence is circumstantial, and it totally could've been his cousin who looks a lot like him, so by the standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt" you can't find him guilty.
38.
Bob | February 8, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Well then they need to keep their stories straight, right?
39.
DaveP | February 8, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Regarding point #1, sure, but the VOTERS were not the defendants. Protectmarriagedotcom was. And THEY knew there was no rational basis, and that their ads were full of lies. The fact that they just barely managed to successfully trick enough voters into passing it does not change those facts and does not get them off the hook, it just means they were good at lying. I don't see how any judge could conclude that tricking voters into thinking something is OK makes it OK.
40.
JonT | February 8, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Nice, I particularly enjoyed #7
41.
JonT | February 8, 2012 at 3:28 pm
You'll have to watch a good portion of the PBS broadcast linked at Joe.My.God to get to it, but…
I did see that. What a rediculous argument. Next they'll be claiming that passing prop 8 was was to prevent asteroids from obliterating the planet.
42.
Steve | February 8, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Judges sometimes have very neutral and even polite phrases for slapping lawyers in the face. Walker's ruling had a couple of those too
43.
Ann S. | February 8, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Marta, I like that quote about education, too. I was always infuriated by the argument that "we can't let gays marry 'cuz then they would teach them in school that gays can marry".
44.
Marta | February 8, 2012 at 5:13 pm
That makes a lot of sense.
But if you factor in election-year politics, maybe they want to use the gay's as a wedge for the presidency again. If you can point to a case that's ABOUT TO GO BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!!!! it might be more convincing that only a GOP prez can save America through court appointments, rather than, "oh this case is still sitting in the 9th circuit but will get to the SCOTUS eventually. Most Americans don't have the attention span to think about what will happen 2 or 3 years down the road.
45.
Sagesse | February 9, 2012 at 5:00 am
Ummmmm… Isn't polygamy already illegal in CA? As it is everywhere in the US?
46. Prop 8 Ruling Quotes &laq&hellip | February 9, 2012 at 7:00 am
[...] read the ruling and posted their favorite quotes. I still plan to do this myself, but until I do, go check out theirs. Brilliant and amazing are only two of the many words I would use to describe [...]
47.
Dwight | February 9, 2012 at 7:13 am
As a bystander for whom gay marriage does not affect in one way or another, this has been an interesting journey.
To watch a group of people, spend millions and millions to try to deny another group of people basic human rights has been to me an example of what is wrong with far too many Americans.
They are losing, on every front, in every battleground.
I applaud your success and you will always have the support of many of us that done happen to be gay.
It is the right thing, as an American, that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
48.
Raymond V. | February 10, 2012 at 11:13 am
I still think this is one of the best quotes from the decision…
"A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of 'registered domestic partnership' does not."
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.