Family Legal Ease - Family Law and LGBT Legal Services

Today, February 7, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Read Decision of the Court of Appeals here.

The supporters of Prop 8 have 15 days to ask the Ninth Circuit panel to reconsider its decision or to ask for reconsideration by a larger panel of judges on that court. Alternatively, they have 90 days to request that the Supreme Court of the United States review the case.

Official Summary of the Opinion

In the Decision issued today, February 7, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court holding that Proposition 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. TheCourt found that in amending the constitution to target a minority group the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

The Court found that Proposition 8’s effect was to take away that importantand legally significant designation of Marriage and served no other purpose than to “lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.” The purpose of  the amendment to theCalifornia Constitution was to eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry which had previously been guaranteed to them by the Constitution. The Court found that in amending the constitution to target a minority group the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

The Court of Appeals held that in this particular case it did not need to decide whether under the United States Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry.

The Court further held that proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to bring this appeal on behalf of the state.

The panel affirmed the denial of the motion by the proponents of Proposition 8 to vacate the judgment entered by former Chief Judge Walker, on the basis of his purported interest in being allowed to marry his same-sex partner. The panel held that Chief Judge Ware did not abuse his discretion by finding that Chief Judge Walker was not obligated to recuse himself on the basis that he could be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.