Civil and Human Rights

MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Reaction To Supreme Court’s Proposition 8 Argument

SUPREME COURT PLAZA, Washington, DC – Minutes after the conclusion of oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court over California’s Proposition 8, in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, Constitutional Accountability Center Vice President Judith E. Schaeffer released the following reaction:

 

“When pressed by the justices, the lawyer defending Proposition 8 could not come up with any legitimate reason for excluding gay and lesbian couples from the freedom to marry. The Justices, while uncomfortable with Proposition 8, seemed hesitant to rule on the merits, but as Justice Kennedy noted, there was concern about branding the families of nearly 40,000 children in California as second-class.

 

“One important question Justice Scalia asked former Bush Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who defended marriage equality, was when it became unconstitutional to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. The answer is 1868, when the American people added the Fourteenth Amendment’s universal guarantee of equality to the Constitution.

 

#

 

Resources:

 

“The Constitutional Case for Marriage Equality,” CAC President Doug Kendall and Cato Senior Fellow Ilya Shapiro, February 28, 2013: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/the-constitutional-case-f_b_2781874.html

 

Brief of Constitutional Accountability Center/Cato Institute in Hollingsworth v. Perry: https://www.theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/CAC-Cato-Perry-Amicus-Brief.pdf

 

Brief of Constitutional Accountability Center/Cato Institute in U.S. v. Windsor: http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/CAC-Cato-Windsor-amicus-brief.pdf

 

“Perfecting the Declaration: The Text and History of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, David Gans,” Text & History Narrative, November 2011: https://www.theusconstitution.org/media/releases/new-study-shows-why-justice-scalia-wrong-%E2%80%93-and-ted-olson-right-%E2%80%93-constitutional

 

“Celebrating Loving: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right to Marry,” David Gans, June 2011: http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2996

 

“The Meaning of Equal: Conservative originalists are rethinking their narrow reading of the 14th Amendment,” Doug Kendall and David Gans, December 2011: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/how_conservatives_learned_to_stop_fighting_the_14th_amendment_and_what_it_could_mean_for_gay_marriage.html

 

##

 

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 Civil and Human Rights

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

New York v. Trump

In New York v. Trump, the First Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral and categorical decision to freeze all federal funding to programs that do not align with its policy priorities violates federal...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Martin v. United States

In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Supremacy Clause overrides the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)’s express waiver of sovereign immunity when a federal employee’s actions “have some nexus with...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Pacito v. Trump

In Pacito v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to dismantle the United States Refugee Assistance Program (USRAP), including by suspending all USRAP funding, violates federal law and the...
Rule of Law
March 13, 2025

March 2025 Newsletter: Ongoing Challenges and New Victories

Rule of Law
March 7, 2025

TV (Bloomberg): Could Trump Saying Musk Heads DOGE Create Legal Issue?

Bloomberg TV
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Catholic Charities Fort Worth v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Catholic Charities Forth Worth v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to freeze funding appropriated for...