Proposition 8 Case Headed to U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals Denies Petition for Rehearing En Banc Filed by Anti-Marriage Proponents of Prop. 8
SAN FRANCISCO, June 5, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a request from anti-marriage forces to reconsider its landmark ruling in Perry v. Brown that found California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Proposition 8 stripped gay and lesbian Californians of the fundamental freedom to marry.
"This order is a great step forward to the day when all Americans will be able to marry the person they love," said Plaintiffs' lead co-counsel David Boies. "Today's decision affirms what we have said from the beginning: marriage is a fundamental right and the unjustifiable denyial of that right seriously harms gay and lesbian couples and their families. This is a great day for all Americans who care about equality."
"Today is a monumental day for the values that we all cherish as Americans: liberty, equality, dignity, and respect," said Plaintiffs' lead co-counsel Theodore B. Olson. "Our Constitution not only protects these principles, it is what our fellow citizens expect from their government. This is a complete victory toward eliminating this last vestige of state-sponsored discrimination and second-class citizenship."
The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) is the sole sponsor of Perry v. Brown, the federal constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8.
"Today's order is yet another federal court victory for loving, committed gay and lesbian couples in California and around the nation," said AFER co-founder Chad Griffin. "The final chapter of the Proposition 8 case has now begun. Should the United States Supreme Court decide to review the Ninth Circuit's decision in our case, I am confident that the Justices will stand on the side of fairness and equality."
On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit concluded that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Ninth Circuit panel majority held:
"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."
The request for a larger eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case, known as rehearing en banc, is only granted upon a majority vote of the Ninth Circuit's 25 judges in regular active service at the time Proponents' petition was filed.
The Ninth Circuit also rejected Proponents' renewed attempt to impugn the reputation of the United States District Chief Judge who struck down Proposition 8. Unable to defend Proposition 8 on its merits, Proponents claim that the now-retired Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker was disqualified from ruling on Proposition 8 and that his historic decision should be vacated because he is gay and in a committed relationship. The Ninth Circuit unanimously rejected Proponents' offensive argument, stating: "To do otherwise would demonstrate a lack of respect for the integrity of our federal courts."
READ THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S ORDER DENYING REHEARING EN BANC HERE: www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012-06-05-En-Banc-Order.pdf
READ THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S PANEL DECISION HERE:
About the American Foundation for Equal Rights
The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the sole sponsor of Perry v. Brown, the federal constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8. After bringing together bipartisan attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead its legal team, AFER successfully advanced the Perry case through Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Perry case has the distinction of being the first federal freedom to marry lawsuit in American history. The Foundation is committed to achieving full federal marriage equality.
SOURCE The American Foundation for Equal RightsBack to top