Constitutional Accountability Center Constitutional Accountability Center
Civil and Human Rights

Letters: Should Court Impose a Single Definition of Marriage?

Urging the court not to decide the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Mr. McConnell argues that the “Supreme Court endangers its own legitimacy and exacerbates social conflict when it seeks to resolve moral-legal questions on which the country is deeply divided without a strong basis in the text of the Constitution.” His claim ignores that the Constitution’s text guarantees equal protection of the laws to all persons, a universal guarantee of equality that secures equal rights and forbids invidious discrimination against anyone.

 

The breadth of the Equal Protection Clause was no accident. While the Fourteenth Amendment was written in the aftermath of the end of slavery, its framers were determined to write into the Constitution the broad principle of equality contained in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, in Prof. McConnell’s own scholarly writings, he has recognized the force of the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment’s universal guarantee of equality, which, in his words, “introduce[d] a constitutional prohibition on invidious discrimination” and abolished “legally sanctioned inequality.”

 

Going back to the Constitution’s founding, it has been the duty and obligation of the courts to protect the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution from denial or abridgment by the government. When governments discriminate against gay men and lesbians and treat them as second-class persons, unworthy of having their loving relationships recognized, it is the duty of the courts to stand as a bulwark for the Constitution’s guarantee of personal, individual rights and ensure to gay men and lesbians equal protection of the laws.

 

The Supreme Court should hold that the Constitution’s text demands marriage equality and invalidate both California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act as a denial of the equal protection of the laws.

 

David Gans

 

Constitutional Accountability Center

 

Washington

 

(The Constitutional Accountability Center, in conjunction with the Cato Institute, recently submitted joint briefs in the marriage cases.)

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
July 1, 2026

Furthering Inclusive Constitutionalism

Jotwell
Professor Allison Brownell Tirres reviewed recent scholarship on the Black Conventions of Reconstruction by CAC’s David H....
Civil and Human Rights
June 30, 2026

CAC Release: Roberts Court’s Conservative Supermajority Hollows Out Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia...
By: David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes, Joshua Blecher-Cohen
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC

In Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Constitution permits the Department of Labor to use administrative proceedings to impose civil monetary penalties on employers who violate...