Two new Articles on Perry v. Brown

Perry v. Brown is the Prop 8 case from California.? Ruthann Robson offers some analysis here on the Constitutional Law Prof Blog to get you started if you?re not already familiar with the case.

These two papers just posted on SSRN see two noted scholars push the analysis further.? Although no doubt analysis about the broader social significance of the case and the decision will be fascinating, these papers take on the doctrinal moves more directly.? suggesting, it seems from the abstracts, that the case is both unremarkable doctrinally (Eskridge) and has limited doctrinal application (West).? As you can see, I haven?t read them yet.? But I?m hoping to find the time.

?A Marriage is a Marriage is a Marriage: The Limits of Perry v. Brown?

Harvard Law Review Forum, Vol. 125, pp. 47-53, 2012? Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 12-027?? ROBIN L. WEST, Georgetown University Law Center

The Ninth Circuit?s decision in Perry v. Brown, authored by Judge Reinhardt, has been widely lauded by marriage equality proponents for its creative minimalism. In keeping with commentators? expectations, the court found a way to determine that California?s Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution?s Equal Protection Clause, namely that the provision took away an entitlement that had previously been enjoyed by same-sex couples ? the right to the appellation of one?s partnership as a ?marriage? ? for no rational reason. The people of California?s categorization and differential treatment of same-sex couples as compared with opposite-sex couples, the court held, failed the test of minimal rationality required for upholding state action. The two types of couples were simply too indistinguishable to carry the weight of the difference between them that the people of California had tried to codify. Thus, the court struck down the state constitutional amendment.

?

The court did so, however, by relying heavily on facts peculiar to California?s political history, thereby limiting the case?s disruption of democratic processes in both California and elsewhere, and, not incidentally, minimizing the size of the target the case presents should the presumptively hostile Supreme Court review the decision. First, Proposition 8 removed an entitlement that had been granted by the California Supreme Court just a few years earlier. The case thus arose in a posture not shared by other cases involving same-sex marriage: what was at stake was the constitutionality of a referendum that took away ? rather than failed to grant ? same-sex marriage. Second, California, by statute, guarantees to same-sex couples a ?domestic partnership? which statutorily grants all of the legal incidents of marriage, including rights of parentage and adoption. Because of the first fact ? that what the Court was faced with was the withdrawal of a preexisting right ? the Court did not have to reach the question of whether same-sex couples possess a ?right to marry? where it has never before been recognized. Because of the second fact ? that all that was at stake in California was the appellation ?marriage? since the domestic partnership laws guaranteed to same-sex couples all other incidents of marital status ? there was no need for the Court to decide whether there would be a ?rational basis? for a state to refuse to grant the right to marry to same-sex couples on the basis of the purported superiority of child-raising in families headed by opposite-sex partners: the case simply does not raise these questions, since California?s statutory scheme grants equal family status to both sorts of couples, and Proposition 8 did not upset that. The court did not, therefore, have to decide that there exists a ?fundamental right to marry,? or that any restriction on the rights of gay people to marry would violate fundamental constitutional values. Rather, it narrowly held that Proposition 8, which stripped gay citizens only of the appellation ?married? and left all other incidents of marriage intact, worked a dignitary and psychic harm on gay and lesbian partners, and did so for no defensible reason. This decision is thus of no relevance to cases challenging a state?s refusal to extend marriage to include gays and lesbians, and it is of no relevance to cases challenging a state?s withdrawal of such a right if that right is also accompanied by a denial of concrete benefits and accompanied by some explanation ? such as the superiority of hetero-sexual parenting ? for the decision to do so.

Perry v. Brown is nothing more than a sui generis decision for a unique set of facts. Thus, creative minimalism.

?The Ninth Circuit?s Perry Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality?

Stanford Law Review Online, Vol. 64, pp. 93-98, 2012? Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 12-032?? WILLIAM NICHOL ESKRIDGE, Yale Law School

In Perry v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit ruled that California?s Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Reacting to the state supreme court?s recognition of marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples, Proposition 8 was a 2008 voter initiative that altered the state constitution to ?restore? the ?traditional? understanding of civil marriage to exclude same-sex couples. The major theme of the Yes-on-Eight campaign was that the state should not deem lesbian and gay unions to be ?marriages? because schoolchildren would then think that lesbian and gay relationships are just as good as straight ?marriages.?

Proposition 8 intended that gay and lesbian couples be carved out of civil marriage and relegated to a separate institution, domestic partnerships. The court properly viewed this official status segregation with suspicion ? a suspicion that was confirmed by the proponents? open denigration of lesbian and gay marriages and their inability to tie taking away marriage rights to a genuine public interest. The original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause was that the Constitution does not tolerate class legislation ? namely, laws that separate one class of citizens from the rest and bestow upon its members a less esteemed legal regime and, with it, an inferior status. This is exactly what Proposition 8 did. Hence, Judge Reinhardt was strictly enforcing the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as applied to the facts before him.

?

paris jackson howard stern americas got talent china aircraft carrier barbara walters most fascinating person 2011 golden globe nominations los angeles clippers los angeles clippers