9th Circuit Issues Opinions on Standing, Recusal In Proposition 8 Challenge

Yesterday in Perry v. Schwarzenneger -- the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 that bars same-sex marriage-- the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued two opinions relating to standing of various intervenors. Judge Reinhardt filed a concurrence.  Rinehardt separately filed an opinion explaining his earlier decision to refuse to recuse himself in the case.

In the first per curiam opinion, the 9th Circuit found that that Imperial County, its Board of Supervisors and a Deputy Clerk all lacked standing to appeal the district court's order finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional.  In the second per curiam opinion, the 9th Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether under California law "official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so."

Judge Reinhardt's concurrence attempted to explain why standing was a problem in the case, and expressed his frustration with the posture of the case. It said in part:

There can be little doubt that when the Plaintiffs filed this action their purpose was to establish that there was a constitutional right to gay marriage, and to do so by obtaining a decision of the Supreme Court to that effect. Yet ... the complaint they filed and the injunction they obtained determines only that Proposition 8 may not be enforced in two of California’s fifty-eight counties.... [I]t is clear that ... Plaintiffs could have obtained a statewide injunction had they filed an action against a broader set of defendants.... Why preeminent counsel and the major law firms of which they are a part failed to do that is a matter on which I will not speculate.

Next, the problem of standing would have been eliminated had the Governor or the Attorney General defended the initiative, as is ordinarily their obligation. Because they believed Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional, they did not do so here. Whether their decision not to defend the initiative was proper is a matter of some debate, although I sympathize with their view that in extraordinary circumstances they possess that right....

Imperial County, one of the counties that voted in favor of Proposition 8, sought to intervene, but for some unknown reason attempted to do so through a deputy clerk who asserted her own rights instead of through the Clerk.... Again, this was a most puzzling legal decision. While we have not ruled as to whether the Clerk would have had standing, we have held that a deputy clerk does not. There are forty-two counties that voted in favor of Proposition 8. Surely [proponents]... could have found a Clerk who would have presented the issue whether a Clerk rather than a deputy has standing.

Finally Judge Reinhardt filed a Memorandum explaining his earlier refusal to recuse himself. (See prior posting.) Reinhardt's wife is head of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU and in that role has been an outspoken opponent of Prop 8. Also the ACLU joined in two amicus briefs filed at the district court level in the case. Reinhardt said in part:

Proponents' contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife's opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses.... [H]er views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them....

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the decisions.

Top Ten 2010 Religious Liberty/ Church-State Developments

Here are my nominations for the 2010 Top Ten Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments. The choices are based on the long-range implications of the developments on legal doctrines and on relations between government and religion. Most of these top ten were reflected in a number of Religion Clause postings over the year. I have linked to representative postings on each issue.

• (1) Ground Zero Mosque becomes national political issue while opponents of Tennessee mosque argue that Islam is not entitled to protection as a religion.
  
• (2) California federal district court invalidates Proposition 8, the California initiative that bars same-sex marriage.
  
• (3) Oklahoma voters approve anti-Shariah state constitutional amendment; court enjoins certification of results.
  
• (4) France bans wearing of burqa in public.
  
• (5) Leaders of women's Catholic religious orders split with bishops over health care reform proposals.
  
• (6)  Florida church creates international furor by proposing "Burn a Qur'an Day" for 9-11 anniversary. Eventually event is cancelled.
  
• (7) Military chaplains oppose repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
  
• (8) Supreme Court upholds Hastings College of Law policy of requiring student religious groups to accept anyone as member in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.
  
• (9) Federal district court declares that federal statute designating National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.
  
• (10) 9th Circuit upholds pledge of allegiance, and "in God We Trust" on coins and currency, against Establishment Clause challenges.

Religion Newswriters Association and Huffington Post have their own Top Ten lists of religion stories.

Australian Anti-Discrimination Law Exempts Religious Foster Care Agency

In OW and OV v Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission Council, (NSWADT, Dec. 10, 2010), the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of the Australian state of New South Wales held that the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act does not require a religiously-sponsored social service organization to approve same-sex couples as foster care providers. Section 56 of the Act exempts any act or practice of a religious body "that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion." Here, Wesley Mission believed that a monogamous heterosexual partnership in marriage should be the role model for children for whom it provides foster care. Sydney's Daily Telegraph today reports on the decision.

New Minnesota Judge Pick Represented Conservative Christian Groups

The Minnesota Independent reports that on Tuesday, Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty appointed attorney Jamie L. Anderson to a vacancy created by a retirement on the state's 4th District (Hennepin County) Court. Anderson is the wife of the Governor's chief of staff and has represented conservative religious groups in high profile cases.  She represented the Minnesota Family Council in its effort to intervene as a defendant in a case challenging Minnesota's ban on same-sex marriage. In 2009, she was one of the lawyers who represented the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minnesota in a case in which it was seeking an equal right with secular groups to to send Christian literature home with students. In 2007, Anderson was a lobbyist for born-again-Christian Frank Vennes who was a large donor to evangelical groups. However Anderson's primary areas of practice are business law, wills and trusts, probate and real estate. In appointing Anderson, Gov. Pawlenty bypassed the state's Commission on Judicial Selection which makes recommendations to the governor.  Legally governors may bypass the Commission and others have also done so.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Omar Salah, Structuring Sukuk Al-Ijarah in the Netherlands, (TISCO Working Paper Series on Banking, Finance, and Services 08/2010, Nov. 26, 2010).
• Stephen Copp, A Theology of Incorporation with Limited Liability, (October 20, 2010).
• Christian J. De Ocejo, War Against God: How Iran Violates Islamic Law and What Human Rights Organizations Should Do About It, (December 3, 2010).
• Hassan Ahmad, Investigating Secondary Source Usage by Hanafi Jurists to Enhance Contemporary Relations in Muslim Minority Societies, (April 12, 2010).
• Pamela S. Karlan, Marriage, Method, and the Supreme Court, (Supreme Court Review, Forthcoming).
• Todd E. Pettys, Sodom's Shadow: The Uncertain Line Between Public and Private Morality, (Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 61, p. 1161, 2010).
• Jeremy Waldron, Secularism and the Limits of Community, (December 9, 2010).
• Todd E. Pettys, Letter from Iowa: Same-Sex Marriage and the Ouster of Three Justices, (Kansas Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP:

• Paul E. McGreal, The Making of the Supreme Court's Free Exercise Clause Jurisprudence: Lessons from the Blackmun and Powell Papers in Bowen v. Roy, 34 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 469-532 (2010).
• Religious Legal Theory: The State of the Field. Articles by Robert K. Vischer, Mark L. Movsesian, John F. Coverdale, Michael V. Hernandez, Samuel J. Levine, Amelia J. Uelmen and David S. Caudill. 40 Seton Hall Law Review 845-990 (2010).

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To California's Proposition 8

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8 that barred same-sex marriage. A video recording of the two hours of argument-- the first half on standing, the second on the merits-- is available from the court's website. Silicon Valley Mercury News reports on the oral arguments, saying that the court "appeared generally inclined to support the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. But how the judges reach that historic conclusion remains quite unpredictable." Scotus blog has an excellent summary of the oral arguments.

Meanwhile leaders of 26 religious groups across the country yesterday issued a letter titled "The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment," in which they affirm their "shared commitment to promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."  Among the groups endorsing the letter are the National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the Orthodox Church in America and the World Sikh Council. (Backgrounder on letter from Catholic Bishops.)

Supporters of Prop 8 Seek Recusal of 9th Circuit Judge

As the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals moves to hear arguments next week in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, supporters of Prop 8 have filed papers seeking to have one of the judges on the appellate panel disqualify himself.  AP reports that in a filing with the court, appellants say that Judge Stephen Reinhardt's impartiality is open to question. The judge's wife, Ramona Ripston, is head of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU and in that role has been an outspoken opponent of Prop 8.  Also the ACLU has filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of plaintiffs who are challenging the law. Reinhardt has recused himself in past cases involving the Southern California ACLU.  In August a federal district court held Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)

UPDATE: The Silicon Valley Mercury News reports that on Thursday, Judge Reinhardt refused to disqualify himself from hearing the case, saying: "I will be able to rule impartially in this appeal, and I will do so." Backers of Prop 8 will not challenge that ruling. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Traditional Marriage Group Cannot Intervene In DOMA Challenge

In Benson v. Alverson, (MN Dist Ct., Nov. 24, 2010), a Minnesota state trial court denied a motion filed by the Minnesota Family Council seeking leave to intervene in a lawsuit challenging Minnesota' Defense of Marriage Act.  Plaintiffs in the case are three same-sex couples and the minor children of one of the couples. The Council is organized to defend traditional marriage, based on Judeo-Christian principles. The court concluded that lobbying for a law does not give an organization a sufficient interest to be entitled to intervention as of right.  In addition, the court concluded that the Council lacks standing to intervene in the case:

[A]lthough the Council attempts to cloak its interest in the nomenclature of organizational injuries and interest, the alleged interest is simply the expression of a desire that the DOMA as written be obeyed. The Council believes that same-sex marriage would harm society, but the Court finds no precedent equating societal non-economic harm to a private organization's injury-in-fact.

The Council had argued that if DOMA is struck down, it will have to divert resources to a campaign to restore a ban on same-sex marriage.  Yesterday's Minnesota Independent reported on the decision.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

Religious Law:

• Mohammed Khnifer, Maslaha and the Permissibility of Organized Tawarruq, (Opalesque Islamic Finance Intelligence, No. 8, p. 6-11, April 27. 2010).
• Rahul Shrivastava, Co Parcenary Rights of Daughters in Hindu Coparcenary In the light of Judgment of The Supreme Court Of India in: B Chandrashekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 2322, (November 19, 2010).
• Mohammad Fadel, Is Historicism a Viable Strategy for Islamic Law Reform? The Case of 'Never Shall a Folk Prosper Who Have Appointed a Woman to Rule Them', (November 21, 2010).
• Mohammad Fadel, 'No Salvation Outside Islam': Muslim Modernists, Democratic Politics, and Islamic Theological Exclusivism, (November 21, 2010).

Non-U.S. Religious Institutions:

• Mitchell Landrigan, Voices in the Political Wilderness – Women in the Sydney Anglican Diocese, (Alternative Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2009).
• Melissa A. Crouch, Implementing the Regulation on Places of Worship in Indonesia: New Problems, Local Politics and Court Action, (Asian Studies Review, Vol. 34, pp. 403-419, December 2010).

Same-Sex Marriage:

• Clifford J. Rosky, Just the Facts? Rethinking Same-Sex Marriage Law in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (November 22, 2010).
• Wilson Ray Huhn, The Fourteenth Amendment Protects the Right to Same-Sex Marriage, (University of Akron Legal Studies Research Paper, Nov. 21, 2010).

Establishment and Free Exercise Issues:

• Steven Douglas Smith, Nonestablishment, Standing, and the Soft Constitution, (San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 10-045, Nov. 22, 2010).
• Kevin Paul Lee, Free Exercise and Religious Mania: Neuroscience and Religious Free Exercise, (September 28, 2010).
• Lorenzo Zucca, The Classroom as a Tolerance Lab, (Law, Religious Freedoms and Education in Europe, Myriam Hunter Henin, ed., Ashgate, Forthcoming).
• Rose Jade, Current Research on the Human Experience of Spirituality Following the Ingestion of ‘Magic’ Psilocybin Mushrooms: An Annotated Bibliography for Social Workers and Other Health Care Professionals, (November 23, 2010).
• Deana Pollard-Sacks, Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court's Speech-Tort Jurisprudence, and Normative Considerations, (Yale Law Journal Online, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Michael J. Bazyler & Seth M. Gerber, Litigating the Pillage of Cultural Property in American Courts: Chabad v. Russian Federation and Lessons Learned, 32 Loyola L.A. International and Comparative Law Review 45-82 (2010).
• Jennifer Gerarda Brown, "For You Also Were Strangers in the Land of Egypt": How Procedural Law and Non-Law Enable Love for "Strangers" and "Enemies," 28 Quinnipiac Law Review 667-690 (2010).
• Stanley A. Goldman, The Jew Who Met Himmler--and Other Stories, 32 Loyola L.A. International and Comparative Law Review 1-18 (2010).
• J.H.H. Weiler, Editorial: State and Nation; Church, Mosque and Synagogue-- the Trailer, 8 I-Con: International Journal of Constitutional Law 157-166 (2010).
• Steven H. Sholk, A Guide to Election Year Activities of Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, Oct. 2010 revision, in PLI Course Handbook for Tax Strategies for Corporate Acquisitions.

Recent Books:

• John A. Ragosta, Wellspring of Liberty: How Virginia's Religious Dissenters Helped Win the American Revolution and Secured Religious Liberty, (Oxford Univ. Press, April 2010).
• Daniel Williams, God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right, (Oxford Univ. Press, Sept. 2010).

9th Circuit Will Permit Live C-SPAN Broadcast of Arguments In Prop 8 Appeal

According to today's San Francisco Chronicle, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that C-SPAN  will be permitted to broadcast live the appeals court arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 that bars same-sex marriage. The two-hour arguments scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on December 6 will be split between arguments on standing and arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. (9th Circuit order on oral arguments.) Attempts to allow limited televising of the federal district court trial in the case were ultimately prevented by a U.S. Supreme Court decision finding that the district court followed improper procedures in adopting its rule permitting broadcasting. (See prior posting.)

3 Iowa Supreme Court Justices Voted Out of Office Because of Their Gay Marriage Ruling

In Iowa, for the first time since the judicial merit selection system was adopted in 1962, three state Supreme Court justices were voted out of office. Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit each received only 45% support for retention. (Unofficial results.) The vote came as a result of a campaign by those who are opposed to the state Supreme Court's ruling last year upholding same-sex marriage. In Varnum v. Brien, (IA Sup. Ct., April 3, 2009), the Iowa Supreme Court held that the Iowa statute limiting marriage to unions between opposite-sex partners violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. (See prior posting.)  The Des Moines (IA) Register reports that the campaign to remove the justices spent $650,000, with much of the money from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. The Iowa Independent last month profiled the various groups supporting the campaign to oust the justices. The campaign in support of the justices spent $200,000. Two trial court judges in Polk County who were also targeted kept their seats.  Judge Robert Hanson who sided with same-sex couples at the trial court level received 66% support for retention, while Judge Scott Rosenberg, targeted for signing a gay couple's marriage waiver, was retained by a 69% vote.

Iowa Absentee Voting During Church Services Concerns ACLU

Iowa law provides that county auditors may approve satellite absentee voting stations at which voters can cast an absentee ballot prior to election day. Today's Des Moines Register reports that for the first time, two Ames Iowa churches will host absentee voting during church services. The Iowa ACLU is concerned about the move, especially because of the church-based campaign in Iowa to unseat state Supreme Court justices over their decision striking down the ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) However church representatives say they will not instruct their members how to vote.  Apparently the move to have churches host satellite voting was initiated by county auditor Mary Mosiman, not by the churches. Three other churches will also host satellite voting, but not during the time of church services.

Cert. Petition Filed In D.C.Refusal of Marriage Initiative

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday seeking review of the D.C. Court of Appeals decision in Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics. In the case, D.C.'s highest appellate court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld election officials' refusal to accept a petition seeking an initiative vote to bar D.C. from recognizing same sex marriages. (See prior posting.) The petition asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the D.C. Council violated the Congressionally approved D.C. Charter in limiting the issues that can be put to an initiative vote. An Alliance Defense Fund press release announces the filing of the cert. petition.

En Banc Rehearing Sought In Christian Student's Challenge To College's Policy

A petition for an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit in Lopez v. Candaele was filed last week. (Full text of petition.)  In the case, a panel of the 9th Circuit held that a Christian student at Los Angeles City College lacks standing to challenge the school's sexual harassment policy because there was never any credible threat that the policy would be used to discipline the student despite a speech professor's objections to the student's religious opposition to same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) The rehearing request argues that the panel holding is at odds with decisions in the 3rd and 6th Circuits which permit a challenge to overbroad statutes that chill speech without a threat of enforcement. Alliance Defense Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the rehearing request.

9th Circuit: Christian Student Lacks Standing To Challenge College's Sexual Harassment Policy

In Lopez v. Candaele, (9th Cir., Sept. 17, 2010), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian student at Los Angeles City College lacks standing to challenge the school's sexual harassment policy.  A speech professor interrupted and verbally attacked the student during a speech in which the student expressed religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The court concluded that there was never any credible threat to apply the sexual harassment policy to discipline the student for expressing his views. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Court Refuses To Mandamus California Governor and AG To Defend Prop 8

The Recorder reports that the Pacific Justice Institute on Tuesday filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in California's Third District Court of Appeal, seeking to force California's governor and attorney general to defend Proposition 8-- the state's ban on same sex marriage-- in court. Both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have said publicly that they do not intend to defend the constitutionality of the voter-approved state constitutional amendment. Brown is the Democratic candidate for governor this fall. Apex News Network reports that on Wednesday the court refused to grant the mandamus petition. The court gave no reasons for its decision.

Court Denies Stay of Prop 8 Decision But Delays Order 6-Days To Allow Appeal

A California federal district court today rejected a motion for a stay pending completion of an appeal of the court's order enjoining enforcement of California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) However the district court did grant a stay until 5:00 p.m. August 18 to permit an appeal on the issue of a stay to the 9th Circuit. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (ND CA, Aug. 12, 2010), the district court concluded that none of four factors normally considered in granting a stay weigh in favor of proponents. Those factors are:

(1) whether proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) whether the stay is in the public interest. 

The city and county of San Francisco, California's governor and its attorney general all opposed a stay. Only the intervenors, who organized the campaign in support of Proposition 8, favored a stay. Focusing on the likelihood of success, Judge Vaughn Walker wrote:

Because proponents filed their motion to stay before the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law, proponents do not in their memorandum discuss the likelihood of their success with reference to the court’s conclusions. Neither do proponents discuss whether the court of appeals would have jurisdiction to reach the merits of their appeal absent an appeal by a state defendant.... If, however, no state defendant appeals, proponents will need to show standing in the court of appeals.... Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not provide them with standing to appeal.... The Supreme Court has expressed “grave doubts” whether initiative proponents have independent Article III standing to defend the constitutionality of the initiative. Arizonans for Official English [v. Arizona], 520 US at 67.

The Los Angeles Times reports on the decision and says that the Proponents will appeal immediately to the 9th Circuit.

Religious Leaders React On Both Sides of Prop 8 Decision

USA Today this morning reviews the reaction of a number of religious leaders on both sides of the debate to a California federal district court's ruling yesterday (see prior posting) that Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional. The Mormon Church, one of the strongest supporters of Proposition 8, urged all sides "to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion" as the debate continues. Rev. Susan Russell, head of Integrity-- an Episcopal group supporting gay rights-- said: "No one has the right to write their theology into our Constitution. (This) should be celebrated by people of all faiths, of any faith and of no faith." The California Catholic Conference said: "That the judge should find the marriage -- civilizations' longstanding public policy -- irrational and discriminatory does a great injustice to the institution itself and ultimately will further encourage the disintegration of mother-father families."

California Federal District Court Strikes Down Proposition 8, The State's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In a 138-page opinion today, a federal district court in San Francisco held that California's Proposition 8 that bans same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger,(ND CA, Aug. 4, 2010), the court held that

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result....Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

In approaching the substantive due process argument, the court said that

the parties do not dispute that the right to marry is fundamental. The question presented here is whether plaintiffs seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry; or, because they are couples of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new right.....

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry.... Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.....

The court concluded that domestic partnerships do not fulfill the state's due process obligation, because they "do not provide the same social meaning as marriage."

Moving to the equal protection issue, the court said:

The evidence at trial shows that gays and lesbians experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and prejudices specific to sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians have historically been targeted for discrimination because of their sexual orientation; that discrimination continues to the present.....

Ultimately the court avoided deciding whether that history of discrimination triggered a strict scrutiny review, because, in its view, Proposition 8 failed even the rational basis test. The court rejected a series of purported justification for treating same-sex couples differently.  It said the evidence showed that same-sex marriage has no adverse effect on society or the institution of marriage and that "tradition alone ... cannot form a rational basis for a law."  Proponents also argued that Proposition 8 protects the First Amendment freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage. The court responded:

To the extent proponents argue that one of the rights of those morally opposed to same-sex unions is the right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying ..., those individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.....

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples..... Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate..... [M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation..... Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.

Proponents of Prop 8, Anticipating Loss, File Advance Motion For Stay Pending Appeal

The federal district court for the Northern District of California has announced that it will issue its decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger-- the challenge to the constituitonality of California's Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage-- today. In anticipation of the decision, yesterday proponents of Proposition 8 (apparently anticipating a loss) filed a Motion for Stay Pending Appeal accompanied by a memorandum in support of the motion. (Full text of filing.) Plaintiffs responded today with a letter (full text) saying they intend to respond if a response is warranted and asked to be heard on the motion. Today's Silicon Valley Mercury News reports on the filing.