Fundamental Right to Marry the Person of One’s Choice Protected by Equal Protection Clause, Says CAC Brief in California Marriage Equality Case

CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra: “The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to destroy discriminatory traditions that deny persons equal rights under the law, not to perpetuate them in the name of the Constitution.”

Washington, DC – Today, Constitutional Accountability Center filed a “friend of the court” brief in the historic case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, demonstrating that the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution compel the court to affirm U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that California’s Proposition 8, which denies the right of marriage to partners of the same sex, is unconstitutional.

Read CAC’s brief here: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/briefs/perry-v-schwarzenegger/9th-circuit-amicus-brief-perry-v-schwarzenegger

“The text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee equality under the law and equality of rights for all persons – without exception,” said Elizabeth Wydra, Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel. Rejecting Proposition 8 supporters’ argument that marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman, Wydra noted, “The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to destroy discriminatory traditions that deny persons equal rights under the law, not perpetuate them in the name of the Constitution.”

David Gans, Director of CAC’s Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program said, “The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause recognized the right to marry the person of one’s choosing as a protected civil right inherent in liberty and freedom. By denying same-sex couples the right to marry, Proposition 8 violates this original meaning and the clear text of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Gans said.

#

Resources:

CAC’s brief amicus curiae in Perry v. Schwarzenegger: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/briefs/perry-v-schwarzenegger/9th-circuit-amicus-brief-perry-v-schwarzenegger

##

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

###

 

More from

Corporate Accountability
 

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.
Rule of Law
June 20, 2024

Opinion | The tragedy of the Supreme Court’s bump stock ruling

Washington Post
Don’t let technicalities, or a refusal to use common sense, become the enemy of public...
By: Nina Henry
Access to Justice
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court rejects artificial limit on liability for speech-based retaliation by government officers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case in...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: In narrow ruling, Supreme Court rejects baseless effort to shield corporate-derived income from taxation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moore v. United...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
June 19, 2024

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett

CNN
Washington (CNN) — On a Supreme Court where the conservative supermajority increasingly leans on history as a...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Devan Cole, John Fritze