Gay Marriage: why Prop. 8 appeal is not going to Supreme Court ... yet

The coalition of groups that backs Prop. 8, California's ban on gay marriage, has asked all the judges of the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case decided by a three-judge panel on Feb. 7. An appeal to the US Supreme Court could still follow. 

David McNew/REUTERS
Same-sex wedding cake toppers are seen outside the East Los Angeles County Recorder's Office on Valentine's Day during a news event for National Freedom to Marry Week in Los Angeles. Backers of the California ban on gay marriage, Proposition 8, announced their next step Tuesday.

Supporters of a ban on same-sex marriage in California on Tuesday asked the full federal court of appeals court in San Francisco to reconsider a ruling by a divided three-judge panel that struck down the controversial law.

Lawyers for Protect Marriage, a coalition of groups supporting the Proposition 8 ballot initiative, filed a 52-page petition asking the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the panel’s ruling.

“The panel majority’s decision conflicts with decisions of the United States Supreme Court and this Court, and consideration by the [full appeals] court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions,” wrote lead counsel Charles Cooper.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled 2 to 1 on Feb. 7 that the ballot initiative and related state constitutional amendment violated the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry.

The appeals court had been asked to rule on whether same-sex couples enjoy a right under the US Constitution to marry on equal terms as heterosexual couples.

The panel declined to address that issue and instead invalidated the measure under a different line of analysis, relying on a Supreme Court decision that prohibited states from singling out homosexual citizens for disfavored and unequal treatment.

The Prop. 8 lawyers had two weeks to decide whether to allow the decision to stand unchallenged or to appeal it. They could take the case directly to the US Supreme Court or ask a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges to rehear the case. Such a proceeding is called en banc review.

The petition does not discuss or hint at the lawyer’s litigation strategy and why it might be better to allow a larger number of appeals court judges to mull the issues before potentially taking the high profile, highly controversial case to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Cooper’s basic argument in the petition is that the appeals court panel was wrong and is in need of correction.

“It is hardly surprising that every state and federal appellate court decision, including binding decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, to address the validity of traditional opposite-sex marriage laws under the federal Constitution has upheld them as rationally related to the state’s interest in responsible procreation and child-rearing,” Cooper wrote.

“The panel majority erred in breaking with the uniform and binding precedent upholding the constitutionality of laws adopting the traditional definition of marriage, and the Court, sitting en banc, should rehear this profoundly important case,” he said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.