Supreme Court dismisses California's Proposition 8 appeal
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton
signs a bill legalizing same-sex marriage at the state Capitol in St. Paul on
May 14, 2013.
|
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has dismissed
an appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling
Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's
voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbian couples from
state-sanctioned wedlock.
The ruling clears the way for same-sex marriages in California to resume.
The 5-4 decision avoids,
for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a
constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states.
At issue was whether the
Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law prevents
states from defining marriage to exclude same-sex couples, and whether a
state can revoke same-sex marriage through referendum, as California
did, once it already has been recognized.
But a majority of the
Supreme Court opted not to rule on those issues. Instead, it ruled on
"standing" -- whether those who brought the suit to the court were
entitled to do so.
"We have never before
upheld the standing of a private party to defend a state statute when
state officials have chosen not to," said Chief Justice John Roberts. He
was supported by an unusual coalition: fellow conservative Justice
Antonin Scalia and more liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen
Breyer, and Elena Kagan.
By dismissing the case,
the court leaves in place the lower court decision in California that
allows for same-sex marriage to be reinstated. The federal appeals court
stay on the decision will be lifted.
It was act two in a closely watched pair of high court appeals
over state and federal laws and the limits of recognizing the ability
of gay and lesbian couples to wed. The outcome of the rulings gives
same-sex couples much to be encouraged about.
California voters
approved Proposition 8 in 2008 with 52% of the vote shortly after the
state Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriages are legal. The measure put
gay and lesbian marriages on hold in the state, but a federal appeals
court later rule Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.
Two of the original
plaintiffs -- Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, a Burbank, California,
couple who want to marry but could not because of Proposition 8 --
contended the state was discriminating against them because of their
sexuality.
"This is about our
freedom and our liberty," Katami told CNN. "We are not trying to topple
marriage. We are not trying to redefine marriage. What we are trying to
say is that equality is the backbone of our country."
Both they and Kristin
Perry and Sandy Stier, the other plaintiff couple from Berkeley, were in
the courtroom when the rulings came out. They were cheered when
emerging from the court building.
Their views were echoed
by fellow same-sex marriage supporters, who rallied outside the court
with the hope that the justices will eventually issue a broad ruling to
strike down bans nationwide.
In dissent, Justice
Anthony Kennedy said the court's majority ignored the initiative process
that led to the passage of Proposition 8.
"What the court fails to
grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it
is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in
the people and flows to the government, not the other way around.
Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from
government," he said. "The California initiative process embodies these
principles and has done so for over a century. ... In California and the
26 other states that permit initiatives and popular referendums, the
people have exercised their own inherent sovereign right to govern
themselves. The court today frustrates that choice."
Kennedy was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor.
The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
SCROLL DOWN TO LEAVE A COMMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment